A husband who deserts his wife by leaving her at her parents' house for several years without providing any maintenance or care is not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights.

A.D.Koshal, J.

1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment dated the 31st of December, 1966, of Shri Autar Singh Sohal, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Malerkotla, granting the respondents application for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant who is his wife. That application was instituted on the 29th of March, 1965, with these allegations. The marriage of the parties was solemnised at Pahal Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, in the month of Asarh, 2014 Bk. whereafter they lived as husband and wife at Malerkotla. The appellant gave birth to a daughter who lived only for four days. About four years prior to the commencement of the present litigation between the parties, the appellant went to her parents and did not return to the respondent thereafter so that she had withdrawn from the society of the husband without any just cause or reasonable excuse. The respondent tried his level best to bring the appellant back to his house but all his attempts in that connection proved abortive.

2. It was prayed by the respondent that he be granted a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant.

3. In her written statement the appellant admitted the factum of the marriage but denied its date which according to her, was 27.2.2011 Bk. She stated that after their marriage the parties resided at Malerkotala only for 2 or 3 years and that for the rest of their married life which covered a period of no less than 7 or 8 years and not merely 4 years as asserted by the respondent the appellant, had been forced to live with her parents which was soon after she was struck with a serious malady resulting in both her legs being incapacitated. It was pleaded that during the said period of 7 or 8 years the respondent completely abandoned her, left her at the mercy of her parents and never provided her with any necessities of life. According to the appellant, it was the respondent who had shunned her society "with some incomprehensible and ulterior object."

4. The parties went to trial on the following issues :

1. Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the applicant without any reasonable cause ? O.P.P.

2. Relief.

5. The respondent examined five witnesses including himself in support of his case. All of them asserted that they had gone to the appellant and her father with a request that the appellant should return to the respondents house but that she and her father refused to accept the request although they assigned no reason for its not acceptance.

6. Seven witnesses were produced by the appellant in support of her case. She herself figures as R.W. 1 and stated that she was married to the respondent 12 years earlier. Two years after the marriage, according to her she gave birth to a daughter who lived only for 22 days. A year thereafter, the appellant deposed, she became ill and was provided with medical assistance by her husband for a period of 1-1/2 years whereafter he left her at her parents house. She asserted that at no subsequent point of time did he come to see her or made any provision for her maintenance or treatment. She added that her parents had got her admitted in the Rajindra Hospital at Patiala where she remained as an indoor patient for 5 or 6 months. Her father, Faqir Chand (R.W. 4) made a deposition practically to the same effect and gave the details of the appellants malady. He stated that a month or a month and a half after the birth of a female child to her the appellates arms and legs became incapacitated and that she had been ailing eversince, although her condition had shown some improvement so that she was now able to eat her own food. He also averred that the respondent had never cared to enquire about the health of the appellant or make provision for her maintenance during the entire period of 8 or 9 years for which she had been with her parents.

7. The learned Subordinate Judge believed the evidence of the respondents witnesses and held tha