SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(P&H) 586

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.P.Chowdhri, J.
Chaman Lal
Versus
Pinke
First Appeal Order No. 24 of 1988,
Decided On : AUGUST 13, 1993

A wife is justified in leaving the matrimonial home if the husband demands dowry and refuses to live with her parents as Ghar Jawai.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 9 - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - WIFE LEAVING MATRIMONIAL HOME DUE TO HUSBAND'S DEMAND FOR DOWRY AND REFUSAL TO LIVE WITH HER PARENTS AS GHAR JAWAL - HELD, WIFE JUSTIFIED IN LEAVING MATRIMONIAL HOME - PETITION DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

Husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife left the matrimonial home alleging that the husband demanded dowry and refused to live with her parents as Ghar Jawai.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the wife was justified in leaving the matrimonial home due to the husband's demand for dowry and refusal to live with her parents as Ghar Jawai. The court also found that the husband did not make any provision for his wife and children and that he did not pay attention to their legitimate requirements.

Issues: Whether the wife was justified in leaving the matrimonial home due to the husband's demand for dowry and refusal to live with her parents as Ghar Jawai.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the wife was justified in leaving the matrimonial home due to the husband's demand for dowry and refusal to live with her parents as Ghar Jawai. The court also held that the husband did not make any provision for his wife and children and that he did not pay attention to their legitimate requirements.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

Judgment

A.P.Chowdhri, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing appellants petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. The petitioner as married with the respondent on July 3, 1983. According to the petitioner, the couple lived happily upto July 4, 1984 and the respondent was sent to her parents house in connection with the first delivery, which was expected a few months later. This was in accordance with the custom that the first delivery of the girl is arranged by her parents. A daughter named Sonia was born to the respondent on November 30, 1984. After two months of the birth of the daughter, the petitioner went to fetch his wife and child. The respondent as well as her mother insisted that the petitioner starts residing with them at village. Gazipur as their Ghar Jawai. This was not acceptable to the petitioner. With great persuasion and with the intervention of elders, the respondent and the child were brought back to the matrimonial house and there they again started living happily when the respondent conceived again. It is further averred that on May 17, 1986, the respondent went to her parents house in routine to meet them. While going, she took away all her gold ornaments and other valuables. The petitioner went to fetch her in the beginning of July 1986 so that the respondent could be attended to during her confinement which was due. Again the respondent and her mother insisted that the petitioner resides with them as Ghar Jawai and in these circumstances the petitioner had to come back without bringing the respondent. A second child, a son, Devinder Pal, was born on July 8, 1986. Further case of the petitioner is that he took a Panchayat consisting of about 22 persons to persuade the respondent and her relations to join the matrimonial house. The Panchayat was, however, turned away on the ground that the petitioner being a person of limited means could not provide the comforts to which the respondent was used to and the only solution was that the petitioner stays with them as their Ghar Jawai. This being not acceptable to the petitioner, the Panchayat came away without achieving any result. The respondent finally declined to resume cohabitation on December 5, 1986 and accordingly the petitioner, the panchayat came away without achieving any result. The respondent finally declined to resume cohabitation on December 5, 1986 and accordingly the present petition was instituted on December 13, 1986.

3. In the written statement, the plea of the respondent is that the relations between the parties were far from cordial from almost the beginning. Respondents father is a non-resident India, living in Sharjah (Dubai). He had spent Rs. 80,000/- on the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner. This, however, did not satisfy the petitioner and his other relations, who tamed out to be greedy persons and had been demanding money in order to start their business. It was denied that the respondent came to her parents house in connection with her first delivery in accordance with the custom. It was pleaded that, in fact, she had been sent away by the petitioner to save expenses in connection with delivery. It was specifically denied that at any stage there was any suggestion by the respondent or any other relation of hers that the petitioner lives with them as Ghar Jawai. In fact, the respondent has five brothers, three of whom are adults, besides two sisters. In order to satisfy the demand of the petitioner, the respondent brought from her mother Rs. 900/- in October 1985 and Rs. 1200/- in March 1986 and gave those amounts to the petitioner. This, however, did not satisfy him. Further case of the respondent is that she was given a beating and turned out of the house in April 1986 for her failure to fulfil the petitioners demands for more money in order to start










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top