A wife is justified in withdrawing from the society of her husband if she is subjected to maltreatment or is turned out of the matrimonial home by her husband.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Wife-appellant has assailed the judgment and decree passed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (herein after referred to as the Act) in favour of respondent- husband Balwant Singh on 7th November, 1984.

2. Admittedly, the parties were married on 17th November, 1976. Out of this wed-lock, the appellant-wife gave birth to four children. In May, 1982 the appellant went to her parental home and since then she is residing there.

3. The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 23rd November, 1982 on the plea that the wife went to her parental home in May, 1982 for delivery of her fourth child and, thereafter, she has not come back to the matrimonial home to resume cohabitation with him, despite his efforts to bring her back. After the marriage on her insistence, he started living separately from his family members in Sangrur. Out of his salary, he used to give money to her parents. At the time of her fourth delivery, he gave her Rs. 600/-. She had taken away her jewellery and valuables at that time. Now she is pressing that he should give his entire pay to her parents. Since he has not accepted to this, she has failed to resume cohabitation with him.

4. The appellant denied all these allegations and inter alia, contended that this petition has been filed as a counter-blast to her petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. The respondent-husband intends to avoid payment of maintenance to her and to her minor children who are all living with her in her parental home. She was maltreated by her husband and was turned out of the matrimonial home. Since then she is residing with her parents as her husband has neglected to maintain her.

5. In the replication the husband-respondent denied the allegations about the maltreatment, though, he admitted that her petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending in the Court.

6. Parties adduced evidence in support of their pleadings. The Trial Court held that the appellant-wife has withdrawn from the society of her husband without just and sufficient cause and consequently, the impugned decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in husbands favour.

7. The appellant-wifes Counsel did not appear when the appeal was heard. The respondents learned Counsel supported the Trial Courts judgment and contended that in May, 1982, the appellant left the matrimonial home on her own as she wanted to deliver the child at her parents house and since then, she has not joined the respondents company. Respondent himself went to fetch her but she declined. He alongwith some other persons went to her parental home to bring her back but she and her parents asked him to reside with them and to give his whole salary to them. Since, he refused to abide by this dictate, they declined to send her to the matrimonial home. Relying on Gurbaz Singh v. Smt. Bhira @ Rantjit Kaur,1979 HLR 185, the respondents learned Counsel stressed that under the amended Section 9 of the Act, the wife is required to prove the justification for her withdrawal from the society of her husband. He pointed out that in this case the appellant has utterly failed to prove any reasonable cause for her withdrawal. The Trial Court has rightly disbelieved her evidence that she was turned out from the matrimonial home or was maltreated by the husband-respondent.

8. On scrutiny of evidence on record, I am unable to agree with the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In the petition, the husband has pleaded that after marriage, she insisted that he should live separately from his parents. After some time, he took his separate residence in Sangrur at the instance of his wife. Her parents were greedy, and they used to demand money from him. His wife used to give money to her parents out of his pay. In May, 1982, she went to her p