A wife's refusal to cohabit with her husband without any reasonable excuse or legal ground amounts to a withdrawal from society without reasonable excuse under Section 9(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights may be granted in such a case.

Shamsher Bahadur, J.

1. This is an appeal of Labh Kaur from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Jagraon, passed for restitution of conjugal rights at the instance of respondent Babu Singh.

2. The parties were married in village Thrike, which is the home of the wifes father. The married life ran a smooth course for about ten years and they lived together at village Morkarima where the husband resides. Three issues were born of this marriage, two of whom are surviving, one boy of 11 and the other a girl of 8. The trouble arose in 1961 when the wife suspected that her husband had a liaison with a married woman Harman Kaur, whose husband was away from the village serving in the Army. According to the wife, her protests only resulted in the beating given to her by the husband with a gandasa. After being turned out from the house she filed an application on the 24th of July, 1962, under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. While this application was still pending, the respondent-husband made an application on the 5th of September, 1962, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights. The maintenance in the application under Section 488 Cr. P.C. was eventually granted at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensum on the 18th of January, 1964, and that is the subject-matter of a revision petition (Criminal Revision No. 33-R of 1964) which is being disposed of separately.

3. This appeal is concerned with the decree which was granted in favour of the husband by the Subordinate Judge on the 22nd of August, 1963. In order to appreciate the argument of Mr. Wasu, learned counsel for the appellant-wife, it may be set out that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was sought by the husband on the following ground contained in paragraph 7 of the petition under Section 9 of the Act :-

"That the respondents father Pritam Singh, who off and on used to visit the parties at the petitioners house to make small demands which the petitioner used to meet to keep harmony at home but this time he made a heavy demand of Rs. 500/- which I could not meet and on his instigation on the respondent after taking necessary cash and valuables with her left the petitioners house without his permission and consent".

4. This was the only ground which was urged by the husband in his application. In the written statement the allegation made in paragraph 7 was traversed and in paragraph 6 it was stated that the treatment meted out towards her by the husband was cruel and further that the "background of all this cruelty and maltreatment is that the respondent is living in illicit connection with the one Harman Kaur and the respondent is a hindrance because as a wife she cannot put up with all this. In paragraph 12 of the written statement the right of the petitioner to obtain a decree was challenged because he himself had turned her out after giving severe beatings.

5. On these pleadings the learned Subordinate Judge framed the following issues :-

(1) Whether the respondent has withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without just cause ?

(2) Whether the petitioner has been guilty of cruelty towards the respondent ?

(3) Whether the petitioner is living in adultery with Harman Kaur ?

(4) Relief.

6. On the first issue the learned Judge has found in favour of the husband and on issue Nos. 2 and 3, the findings of the Court are that no evidence has been adduced in their support. In consequence the decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been granted and the wife has come in appeal.

7. It must be stated at the outset that the evidence led by the parties in support of their respective cases is oral and so far as its quality is concerned there is not much to choosen between one set of witnesses from the other. An analysis of the evidence shows that both the parties have relied on the statements of the witnesses who had formed a Panchayat to go to the ho