The court's interpretation of cruelty under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the circumstances in which a wife can refuse to live with her husband.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Bareilly on 31-8-1988 in a matrimonial case under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent against the appellant. After trial the suit was decreed and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the respondent against the appellant. The appellant who is wife of the respondent prays for setting aside the judgment of the Court below because in her opinion the judgment passed by the Court below is against the evidence on record, and it is contrary to the material documentary evidence on record produced by her. It is, further averred that appreciation of evidence by the trial court is also not proper. Appellants case is that she has suffered cruelty and mental agony on the part of the respondent and she was justified in refusing to live with the respondent. Appellants further case is that respondent and his family had dealt with the appellant with cruelty or demanding dowry from the appellants father. The appellant is said to have obtained an order under S. 125, Cr. P. C. and the present proceedings are likely only to nullify the effect of order under S. 125, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) THE trial courts record was summoned and learned counsel for the parties were also heard at length. The learned counsel for the parties have filed numerous applications for interim reliefs. One of the applications filed was that respondent be permitted to re-marry and his marriage with the appellant be dissolved under the Hindu Marriage Act and other applications pertaining to maintenance, etc. are also on the file. When these applications came up for consideration it was agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that let the appeal be decided finally so that controversy between the parties is settled which will obviate consideration of miscellaneous applications. The request of the learned counsel for the parties was granted and the matter was taken up for final hearing.

( 3 ) FROM the record it is revealed that the appellant was married to the respondent in December 1982 and the parties are said to have lived at Bareilly as husband and wife. It appears that respondent had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in 1983 also and the appellant had filed an application under S. 125, Cr. P. C. for payment of maintenance from the respondent. This suit appears to have been compromised between the parties and parties had agreed that they will discharge their obligations towards each other faithfully. A child is also said to have born to the appellant out of the wedlock. Further, there is some dispute about the appellants leaving the matrimonial home. Respondents contention is that appellants father had come to Bareilly and in the month of December 1985 he took away the appellant and the child along with the valuables such as clothes, ornaments and jewellery on the pretext that he has to do some ceremonial function in connection with the birth of his granddaughter. The appellants contention is that respondents mother and sister have been treating her cruelly and have been demanding dowry which could not be paid to them because the appellants father had retired from service. The respondent had left the appellant at her fathers house on the occasion of Holi in 1983 and after that he never came to take her back. In these circumstances appellant had to file an application under S. 125, Cr. P. C. in a proper Court. She has denied having taken any valuables such as clothes, jewellery or ornaments along with her. It is, further stated that respondent had given in writing that he will behave properly with the appellant in future and will not demand any dowry. On this condition, the appellant is said to have gone to live with the respondent and discharged her matrimonial obligations. When a female child was born to the appellant, respondent and his family is said to have been annoyed with the appellant and they again started tourturin