A wife cannot withdraw from the society of her husband without reasonable cause or excuse. The standard of proof for matrimonial offences is the same as in criminal cases and the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt.

C.G.Suri, J.

1. Shri Hardip Singh has filed this appeal against the order dated 13-8-1968 of Shri Madan Lal Singhal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Barnala, whereby his petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Smt. Dalip Kaur alias Tej Kaur respondent was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

2. A marriage between the parties had been solemnized 10-11 years ago and they had lived together as husband and wife until about 10 months before the filing of the petition in March, 1967. Two male children had been born during the wedlock and they are at present in the custody of their mother. The parties have given different versions as to the reasons that led to their separation after they had lived together for about 10 years and had been blessed with two male children. According to the appellant, his wife had left the house with the children as she wanted him to set up a house separate from his parents and that he had declined to do so. The respondents case is that her mother-in-law was harassing her all the time and used to threaten that she would prevail upon the appellant to marry again and that she had been turned out of the house after being given a beating. She offered to come back to her husbands house if he separated from his parents.

3. The pleadings of the parties had given rise to the following two issues:-

-

(1) Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable cause or excuse?

(2) Whether there is no legal bar to the granting of the petition?

The learned trial Judge had found, inter alia, that the respondent was not pulling on very well with her mother-in-law and that the appellant was compelling her to live in his parental house where it was difficult for the respondent to live in peace. The fact that the appellant had not sent his wife and children any maintenance or expenses for about 4 years had also influenced the decision. There was no clear finding that the wife had ever been beaten or otherwise cruelly treated. The respondent was therefore, found to be justified in withdrawing from the appellants society.

4. It is in evidence that the appellants brothers have shifted to another village and the appellant is helping his old parents in the cultivation of the ancestral land. He is the only one to look after them in their old age, and it cannot be said that there are no sufficient grounds for his failure to accede to the respondents demand that he should set up a separate house. I can very well imagine that the relations between the respondent and her mother-in-law have not been very happy or cordial but in spite of that the respondent has lived in that house for very nearly 10 years and had borne the appellant two male children. There would be small bickering whenever two persons have to live under the same roof and it is not every difference that should lead to the wrecking of the marriage or the future of the children. Even the spouses may go on having petty bickerings and quarrels for a lifetime and still make a thumping success of the marriage. Married life would be impossible without a spirit of give and take, and mutual adjustments and compromises. There is reliable evidence on record that there are no serious differences between the parties and that their differences can be patched up if a correct approach is made by the parties. The respondents witness Mit Singh, R. W. 4 had asked her as to why she did not go back to her husband. She expressed her willingness if some one were to come to take her. She apprehended that the appellant would marry again. The respondent had even told that witness that in spite of the fact that her mother-in-law always fighting with her, she would willingly go back to her husband if somebody were to come to take her there. The appellants witness Sital Singh admits that there have been differences between the respondent and her mother-in-law but the appellan