The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petition for restitution of conjugal rights may be dismissed if it is found to be filed in response to the wife's application for maintenance and if the wife was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to repeated demand for dowry and maltreatment.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against order dated 29.3.1989 passed by the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Nabha, exercising the powers of District Judge under the Hindu Marriage Act whereby petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred by the husband (appellant herein) for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed.

2. Marriage between the parties took place on 12.3.1986 and they lived together at Nabha. According to the appellant, as averred by him in his petition under Section 9 of the Act, on 6.6.1987, father of the wife (respondent herein) took her on the pretext of Tian festival but later she failed to return to her matrimonial home. He also averred in his petition under Section 9 that while going with her father, she took all her jewellery and other valuables with her which were presented to her by his parents. He also averred that despite persuation failed to return to her matrimonial home though he is always ready and willing to live with her.

3. Against this, the case of the respondent, in the written statement, has been that right from the day behaviour of the appellant and his parents towards her was very harsh they were not satisfied with the dowry she had brought. They always used to taunt and maltreat and she would often be beaten. She alleged that she was beaten when she was pregnant and on that account, a dead child was born to her. It is her case in the written statement that she was turned out of the house after giving beatings to her and all the jewellery articles given to her at the time of marriage either by her parents or by the appellant, were kept by the appellant. She averred that she took Panchayat where the appellant was serving and requested to rehabilitate her but he refused to take her to his house and per force, she had to file an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for her maintenance and petition under Section 9 of the Act has been filed in counter-blast to the application.

4. Appellant filed replication controverting the pleas taken by the respondent in her written statement. Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues and parties were given sufficient opportunity to produce evidence. On the basis of the pleadings and on appreciation of the evidence which has been brought on record. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondents has not withdrawn from the society of the appellant without any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the Court held that the appellant is not entitled to the decree prayed for.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that it is proved on the record that the respondent had deserted the appellant and the appellant is still willing and ready to rehabilitate her but inspite of this, the Trial Court instead of granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, has dismissed the petition of the appellant on conjectures and surmises.

6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and on going through the records, I am of the view that the appeal is devoid of any merit. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties took place in March, 1986. According to the husband, his wife lived with him only for a year or so and then went away to her parents alongwith her father on the pretext of attending Tian festival. It is also the case of the appellant that he tried to bring her back but she refused to come back with him. The version of the wife, on the other hand is that her husband used" to maltreat her and he had also made unreasonable demand for money. In support of her case that the appellant had been demanding money, respondent examined as many as three witnesses. All of them consistently deposed that the appellant had been demanding money from the respondent. It is highly unbelievable that the father of the respondent would take the respondent on the pretext of Tian festival and later, would not send her back to her husbands house. No circumstanc