A husband is not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights if the wife has withdrawn from his society with reasonable cause and if he has failed to explain the delay in filing the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Sarojnei Seksena, J.

1. This is wifes appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act (in short the Act).

2. Uncontroverted facts are that on 9.3.1972 respondent Rajinder Singh and appellant Kamal Yadav were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Shakurpur. After the marriage, they lived together at Gurgaon and other places till 12.5.1983. In this wedlock the appellant gave birth to a son on 24.8.1974 and to a daughter of 13.8.1980. Both these children are residing with the appellant at her parental home. The appellant filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 15.6.1983 which was decided on 20.5.1988 whereby the respondent was ordered to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance to the appellant and to her children. On 12.5.1988 the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act.

3. The respondent has alleged in his petition that since beginning the appellant was very strong headed, obstinate, rude and quarrelsome. She was under the evil spell of her parents. She used to insult and abuse the respondent, his parents and other family members. Since he was living with his parents and brothers in a joint family, the appellant wanted him to live separately out of Gurgaon. She and her parents persistently persuaded him to leave Gurgaon and to reside with her father at Shakurpur. As he declined to accede to their dictates, the appellant left his house in June, 1980. In November, 1980, he brought her back, but again as she repeated her same demand to which he was no agreeable, she left the matrimonial home in mid April, 1981. The respondent went to her parental home to bring her back. At that time her parents and brothers did not behave with him properly. He brought her back, but she again left within 10 days. Thereafter he again went to her parental home to bring her back, but she totally declined to come back unless he agrees to live separately. Her family members also threatened him. On 13.5.1981, his brother and sister went to Shakurpur to call her to attend death anniversary of his father, but she again declined to come. He and his relations made efforts to bring her back to matrimonial home on 5.7.1981, August, 1982 and September, 1982. On 26.10.1982 she came to her matrimonial home, but again she pressed her same demand and asked for share of the property which he might get in partition. In January, 1983, her brother came to his house and threatened to kill him and asked him to transfer property of his share in her name. Finally on 12.5.1983 in his absence the appellant left the matrimonial home along with her father and few other persons. Thereafter his cousin Sunil Yadav, he and his relations went to her parental home to persuade her to join his company, but she never accepted the offer. She has filed a false, fictitious and vexatious application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against him. Thus he prayed that decree for restitution of conjugal rights be passed in his favour.

4. The appellant in her reply raised preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable in view of Section 23(1)(d) on account of improper delay. The respondent is guilty of intentional desertion, neglect and cruelty. The petition is characterised as false, frivolous and vexatious. Since she has filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a counter-blast, he has filed this petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent was ordered to pay Rs. 1,000/- as maintenance to her and her children. She asserted that she never insulted and abused the respondent or his family members and never asked him to leave his joint family. Even her parents and brothers never asked the respondent to live separately. They never threatened him to kill. She has specifically denied that the respondents brother, sister, cousin or other relations came to her parental home to take her. It is also denied that on 12.5.1983 she left the matrimonial home in his absence and took away all her ornaments and clothings. She has averred t