The court emphasized the importance of proving allegations of cruelty and fulfilling matrimonial obligations in cases related to restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul. J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the husband - Mukesh, whereby, he has impugned the judgment and decree dated 03rd October, 2016, passed by the Ld. District Judge (Family Court), Karnal (in short 'Ld. Family Court') vide which the petition filed by the respondent-wife - Ekta, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed.

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as pleaded in the petition filed by the respondent-wife (petitioner therein) before the Ld. Family Court, may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14th December, 2006 at Karnal. The marriage was consummated and a son was born on 06th May, 2007, out of the wedlock. She inter alia pleaded that despite her parents having spent Rs. 13.00 lakhs on her wedding and showered her and her in-laws family with gifts including gold on various occasions, their greed was un-satiated, as she would be subjected to taunts for not getting sufficient dowry. So much so, she was subjected to continuous physical and mental abuse by the appellant-husband and his family, even during her pregnancy which resulted in health issues of her child. On 09th August, 2008, the appellant-husband came home under the influence of liquor and demanded that the respondent-wife get an amount of Rs. 7.00 lakhs from her parents for the purchase of a car, but when she expressed her inability and reluctance, she was turned out from her matrimonial home. It was the neighbours of the respondent-wife, who telephonically informed her parents at Karnal, who then rushed to Panipat and brought her along with her son to their home. Thereafter, Panchayats were convened where despite an assurance having been given by the appellant-husband and his family, their behaviour continued to be the same as before. On 18th September, 2009, again a demand was made by the appellant-husband for a luxury car, since they were moving into a new house. On her refusal, the respondent-wife was subjected to merciless beatings by the appellant-husband and his family and thereafter thrown out from the matrimonial home along with her child. On 17th October, 2009, the appellant-husband came to her parental home for taking their son with him for Diwali pooja but despite the requests and pleadings of her parents to take her as well, he refused. She, then, reluctantly allowed the son to be taken by the appellant-husband for two days for attending the Diwali pooja, as he promised that the son would be brought back within two days. The child was not brought back even after four days, so the respondent-wife along with her relatives went to the house of the appellant-husband to get her minor son back. On reaching there, she was informed that the son was living at Gurgaon with his paternal aunt. A Panchayat was thus convened for the purpose of getting the custody of the minor son but in vain. However, after one month she was telephonically called by the appellant-husband himself to take the son back, as he had been crying for his mother. It was in this background that the son was finally brought back by the respondent-wife. She pleaded that she was ready and willing to return to her matrimonial home and discharge all her matrimonial obligations for which she had been making persistent and sincere efforts by not only telephoning her husband, but also by convening Panchayats.

3. Per contra, the appellant-husband (respondent therein) refuted and denied the allegations of the respondent-wife, in the written statement filed before the Ld. Family Court by terming the petition under Section 9 of the Act as a ploy to harass him. He submitted that his life as well as the life of his family was unsafe in the company of the respondent-wife, as she had threatened them that she would kill them by poisoning their food. He alleged that the respondent-wife and her mother were eyeing his agricultural lands a