Back
1990 Supreme(P&H) 55
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
Narinder Kumar Sharma
Versus
Chander Prabha
of,
F.A.O. No. 151 of 1987,
Decided On : JANUARY 19, 1990
A wife is entitled to withdraw from the society of her husband if she has a reasonable cause to do so, such as dowry demands and mental torture.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 9 - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - WIFE'S WITHDRAWAL FROM MATRIMONIAL HOME - REASONABLE CAUSE - DOWRY DEMANDS AND MENTAL TORTURE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that his wife had deserted him without any reasonable cause. The wife contested the petition, claiming that she had been subjected to dowry demands and mental torture by her husband and his family, which forced her to leave the matrimonial home.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had established a reasonable cause for withdrawing from the society of her husband, as she had been subjected to dowry demands and mental torture by her husband and his family. The court also found that the husband had failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his allegations that the wife was of boastful nature, did not attend to her domestic duties, or was not respectful to her in-laws.
Issues: Whether the wife had a reasonable cause for withdrawing from the society of her husband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the wife had a reasonable cause for withdrawing from the society of her husband, as she had been subjected to dowry demands and mental torture by her husband and his family. The court relied on the evidence presented by the wife, including letters written by her to her father expressing her distress and the testimony of witnesses who corroborated her claims.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 5-6-1987 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby it had dismissed the petition under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant-husband. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are ;
2. That the appellant filed a petition under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on the basis that his wife Smt. Chander Prabha has walked out of her matrimonial house on 5-3-1984 without any reasonable cause. Despite his repeated requests to bring her back she has not rehabilitated. It was urged in the petition that the respondent-wife was proud of the richness of her father and did not like the standard of living of her in-laws family. Even she was not performing her domestice duties as a wife and had no respect for the appellants parents. It was on 5.3.1984 when the appellant was away to attend to his professional duties, that the respondent-wife left for Delhi on the pretext to see her father, but she did not return to her matrimonial house despite several efforts to bring her back. In this manner, she has deserted appellant without any reasonable cause.
3. The case of the respondent-wife on the contrary is that it was the greed of the appellant and his parents which compelled her to walk out from the matrimonial home. The learned Trial Court framed as many as four issues. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the entire evidence led by the parties reached to the conclusion that the petition is mala fide one, as alleged in the written statement, that the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioner on a sufficient cause and that the petitioner is not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. In the appeal filed in High Court the appellant has assailed the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that in order to prove the reasonable cause of withdrawing from the society of the petitioner, the onus was upon the wife who has withdrawn herself from the matrimonial home which the respondent has failed to discharge, whereas the appellant has proved his desertion.
5. I have considered the arguments at the bar and have scanned the entire Trial Courts file. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.10.1983 and it is also not in dispute that the respondent-wife left her matrimonial home on 5.3.1984. This Court has to examine the circumstances which forced the wife to walk out from her matrimonial house. It is specific stand of the respondent-wife that many costly articles were given by her parents to the appellant at the time of her marriage. She has given the details of some of the articles while deposing as RW-1 before the Trial Court that the dowry included Scooter (Bajaj make), Television, sewing Machine, ornaments and other household goods. It is also in her testimony that these articles were not of the liking of her husband and other members of his family. Her husband wanted a Bajaj Priya scooter instead of Bajaj Chetak and Sewing Machine was also got changed at the instance of her in-laws. The replacement of the Sewing Machine was admitted by the father of the appellant while appearing as AW-2.
6. Kewal Krishan AW-3 stated that he had got the marriage between the parties arranged and after marriage the father of the appellant-husband met him and expressed his unhappiness over quantity/quality of the dowry articles. He further deposed that he had got certain articles of dowry changed at the instance of the father of the appellant-husband, there was a demand of more articles by the father of the appellant and he had suggested The appellants father to write a letter to the daughter in-laws father. This part of his statement has almost gone unrebutted.
7. Apart from this, there are several letters on record by the respondent-wife. It would be significant to refer to the contents
