S.D.Anand, J.

1. The appellant-husband filed a plea under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which (plea) did not find favour with the learned Trial Court. It came to be negatived, vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.2001.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28.1.1991. The parties cohabited thereafter, as husband and wife, and two children (a son and a daughter) were born out of their union. Both the children are presently putting up with the respondent-wife. There were no creases in the interse relationship of the parties till six months thereafter when the brother of the respondent-wife enticed a real sister of the appellant-husband and started living with her. That act on the part of the brother of the respondent-wife was not appreciated by both the families. After some time thereof, the relations between the aforementioned brother of the respondent with his parents became cordial. Thereafter, the respondent and her parents started pressurising the appellant to bring his enticed sister to his own house and to marry her off to some one else. The appellant was not agreeable to that proposal because he had severed all his relations with the enticed sister. On account of the resistance aforementioned on the part of the appellant, the respondent-wife withdrew from his conjugal society and announced that she would get back to the matrimonial house only when the proposal aforementioned would be acceptable to him. It was also an averment that even the birth of a daughter (at a subsequent point of trial) at the natal house of the respondent-wife was not intimated to him.

3. It was on the above allegations that the appellant filed a plea for the restitution of the conjugal rights.

4. The respondent-wife averred that the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was a counter blast to a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which she had already filed against the appellant-husband in a Court of law. She denied the averments made by the appellant-husband about the circumstances under which the parties were no longer cohabiting as husband and wife. She averred that the appellant-husband had always treated her in a cruel manner and he, being a big-boozer, would belabour her while being under the influence of liquor. She did not intimate the behaviour of the appellant to her parents in the fond hope that he might improve in due course of time but things did not go her way of perception. She was deserted at the time of birth of first child. The delivery took place at Civil Hospital, Saroya. It is her parents who paid for the delivery. The birth of the child was duly intimated to the appellant who never bothered her to visit her or the newly born child. However, respondent-wife herself went to the matrimonial house with the first child. The appellant did not relish the birth of that child as he was born handicapped. His legs were not in proper form and "there was a sore on the back of the child". In spite of the respondent having told the appellant that it was an act of the God and no blame for the deformity of the child could be fastened upon her, the appellant advised her "to throw the child in a dustbin or her parents may arrange to keep him". It was in the light of the wishes of the appellant, that "the said child was brought at village Dayal.". Though the parties resumed cohabitation thereafter but the behaviour of the appellant did not undergo any change for the better. He even once tried to put the respondent afire but her neighbours came to her rescue. At the time the respondent was pRegulation nt with the second child, she was visited by mother of the appellant who announced to her that she (mother of the appellant) was inclined to marry him (appellant) off to some other girl. She proposed that the respondent should divorce the appellant. Under compulsion, signatures of the respondent were also obtained on certain blank papers. The respondent averred an apprehension that those papers might be utilis