A wife is not obligated to return to the matrimonial home if she has been subjected to maltreatment, cruelty, and dowry demands by the husband and his family.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Husband-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) against the judgment delivered by Shri S.C. Aggarwal, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, in Hindu Marriage Act Case No. 53 of 1989, filed under Section 9 of the Act.

2. Uncontroverted facts of the case are that the parties were married on December 6,1987. In this wedlock the respondent gave birth to a son on February 27,1989. They lived together in the matrimonial home at village Babowal upto March 30,1989. Since then they are living in their parental homes.

3. Appellant-husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that immediately after marriage the respondent was insisting for a separate residence, but due to his family circumstances he was enable to accede to her demand. She left the matrimonial home in July, 1988. In September, 1988 she was brought back by his parents. On March 30,1989, when the child was about a month old, respondents mother, her sister with her husband came to take back the respondent and the child. The appellant declined to sent her on the ground that let the child be of 40 days. On March 31,1989, again the respondent was called out of the house by her brother-in-law, who took her to her parental home. Respondent went with her brother leaving a month old child at his residence. On April 9,1989, this child was taken away by respondents parents with the help of the police. Thereafter thrice he went to her parental home with respectable to bring her back, but she always declined and insisted for separate residence.

4. The respondent in her reply controverted the alleged facts. She averred that since the inception of the marriage, the appellant was maltreating her. He and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry. They demanded dowry not only in the shape of articles like television and scooter, but the appellant also demanded Rs. 20,000/- for house repairs. She asked her parents but they were unable to satisfy their lust for dowry. She denied that she ever demanded separate residence for herself with the appellant. The appellant used to lock her in a room and did not give her food for a number of days. He levelled false allegations of unchastity and immorality against her and used to beat her even when she was pregnant. Due to this continuous maltreatment and cruelty", she was forced to write letters to her father. When her child was only a month old, she was again beaten and was turned out of the house: The child was snatched away from her and she was forced to leave the house in bare wearing apparel. Her dowry articles and ornaments were kept back by the appellant. On September 9,1989, at about 7 a.m. the appellant accompanied by his mother and two strangers came to her parental home and tried to forcible take away the child. When she resisted, she was beaten by the appellant. She got herself medically examined. When she was living in the matrimonial home, respectales from her village alongwith Lakhbir Singh Sarpanch came to her matrimonial home and they told the appellant to behave with her properly. Now she is not willing to join the appellant as she apprehends danger to her life.

5. On these pleadings issues were struck and parties evidence was recorded. The learned lower Court, relying on respondents evidence, held that she was maltreated by the appellant and was turned out of the matrimonial home, and that she had not withdrawn form the society of the appellant without reasonable and sufficient cause. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

6. Appellants learned Counsel took me through the evidence on record. He vehemently stressed that from the evidence on record, it is evident that the respondent is not willing to come back to the matrimonial home, though the appellant is ready to take a separate residence and is willing to give any security that she wants. He further submitted that the appellant has proved that she has deserted him