Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 at the instance of wife against the judgment and decree dated July 2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Matrimonial Petition No. 688 of 2005, decreeing the petition filed by the husband for divorce.

2. Smt.Arti Pandey, the appellant, daughter of a District Bank Co-operative Officer, having urban background, resident of Allahabad city got married to Vishnu Kant Tiwari, the respondent, resident of a Village of Allahabad District of rural back ground, a student at the time of marriage, on 14.5.1997. The parties are Brahmin by caste. The father of the husband mostly resides at Kolkata in connection with his business, leaving his wife (mother in law of the appellant) and son respondent to reside in the Village, and used to visit once or twice in a year.

3. As per custom prevalent in the community, the wife remained in her parental house after the marriage and after about five years on 9.3.2002, ‘gouna’ ceremony was performed (second marriage) and then she visited to her matrimonial house in the Village where she lived happily for 15 to 20 days. Thereafter, she went to her parents’ house. The husband says that the parents of the wife wanted that the husband should reside with them at City Allahabad and that is the reason they used to create all sorts of obstructions and hurdles on the occasion of ‘Bidai’ of the wife to her matrimonial home.

4. The husband had earlier filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 27.9.2002 being petition No. 519 of 2002, against his wife and her parents. After getting the information of the said petition, the parents of the wife acceded to his request and the parties compromised the dispute. The wife visited her matrimonial home in the month of 2003, consequently, the said petition was got dismissed in default on 21.5.2003.

5. The case of the husband in brief is that after about 10 months, in-laws again started pressurizing (the husband) to leave his parents and shift to Allahabad. The wife lived with him up to 11.3.2005 before Holi in his Village and thereafter without any lawful excuse, she has refused to come to her matrimonial house. It was further pleaded that he being a student and belongs to a family of limited means and the only son, it is not possible for him to have a separate accommodation in the City Allahabad although he has all love and affection for his wife and has all respect for her. Last effort for ‘Bidai’ was made on 25.10.2005 but without any success, on the above allegations a petition No. 688 of the 2005 for restitution of conjugal rights, was presented.

6. In reply, the factum of marriage and of ‘Gauna’ held on 9.3.2002 was admitted by the wife. She came out with the case that the husband and his family members treated her very badly for inadequate dowry. She is also lone daughter of her parents besides a brother. She was beaten many times and was turned out by the husband and his family members. The allegation that mother-in-law is an old lady was denied and it was stated that even grandmother of the husband is alive. The husband and his other family members made murderous assault on her and it would be better if she resides in her parent’s house, it would also be better for both the parties. There is no question in the facts and circumstances of the present case for passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

7. During the pendency of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife filed a case being Case No. 20 of 2006 for maintenance.

8. Certain other developments which goes to the root of the case were taken place during the pendency of these proceedings. The husband who was preparing for competitive examination of Indian Administrative Services took a room on rent in the city for preparation of the competition. The wife also resided at her parent’s house. She completed the nur