JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The suit, which has given rise to this second appeal, was instituted by Imam Bakhsh, plaintiff-appellant, for restitution of conjugal rights against Mt. Amiran, defendant 1, whom he claimed as his wife. The parents of Mt. Amiran and some other relations were also impleaded and an injunction was asked for against them directing them not to prevent Mt. Amiran from going over to the plaintiff.

2. The suit was decreed ex parte by the trial Court but was dismissed by the learned District Judge on appeal by the defendants.

3. A second appeal has been preferred by Imam Bakhsh and it is argued on his behalf that the learned District Judge having found that defendant 1 was validly married to the plaintiff has dismissed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights on legally inadequate grounds. The facts found are, however, as follows:

(a) That Mt. Amiran was married to the plaintiff about ten years before the suit, the marriage having been arranged by her father with a view to procure a bride for his son in exchange for her.

(b) That since the marriage the girl has been living with her parents, no effort having been made by the plaintiff to bring her to his house.

(c) That though Mt. Amiran attained puberty three years ago, the marriage has not been yet consummated.

(d) That about the time Mt. Amiran attained puberty the plaintiff married another woman with whom he has since been living and from whom he has got a daughter.

(e) During all this period the plaintiff has absolutely neglected Mt. Amiran.

4. Mr. Shambhu Lal Pari has argued that these facts are insufficient to justify refusal to the plaintiff of relief by way of restitution of conjugal rights and that the learned District Judge should have decreed the suit. He has cited before me a number of rulings each of which was, however, decided on its peculiar facts. It is well settled that the grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is discretionary with the Courts and though ordinarily such a decree will be refused only if the husband has been guilty of legal cruelty towards his wife, he may disentitle himself to this relief by his gross failure to perform the obligations which the marriage contract had imposed on him for the benefit of the wife: see Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoonnissa Begum [1866] 11 M I.A. 551, Ziada v. Jowai [1916] 46 P.R. 1916 and the recent decision of this Court in Nawab Bibi v. Allah Ditto A.I.R. 1924 Lah. 188.

5. Having regard to the facts as found above and all the circumstances of the case I am of opinion that the learned District Judge exercised a sound discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.