JUDGMENT

C.A.V on 27/01/2022 Pronounced on 01/02/2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J .

The husband is aggrieved of the judgment dated 22^nd February 2017 passed in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 230 of 2013 and the decree dated 28^th February 2017 prepared thereon – suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife has been decreed.

2. Title Matrimonial Suit No. 230 of 2013 was instituted by the wife on the ground that her husband had withdrawn himself from her society without any reasonable cause or excuse. Their marriage was solemnized on 17^th April 2000 at Sector-III/B, Quarter No. 299, B.S. City, Bokaro and after the marriage she lived in her matrimonial home for some time. At the time of the marriage, she was a medical student and at the instance of her husband she went to Kazakhstan (Russia) for study. As per the plaint averments, she was not extended proper respect and honor by her husband and in-laws and whenever she visited her matrimonial home the family members of her husband abused, tortured and embarrassed her in various manners for their unlawful demand of dowry. In the circumstances, she was constrained to lodge a First Information Report under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband and his family members vide Harla PS Case No. 31 of 2007 dated 20^th February 2007. Her husband instituted Title Matrimonial Suit No. 12 of 2008 seeking divorce and it was dismissed on 09^th May

2013. She further asserted that during trial of the criminal case she always tried for amicable settlement of the matter but her husband did not agree to keep her in his society.

3.

In paragraph no. 2(c) of the plaint, the wife has averred as under:

“2(c) That, the petitioner has never deserted the respondent rather she has been doing every effort for the restoration of conjugal life and to lead a happy life with the respondent but the respondent did not take any response rather he filed divorce petition on fake and false ground. The petitioner has never withdrawn herself from the society of the respondent as alleged. Both parties were constantly in touch with each other during the stay of the petitioner in Russia where she was completing her Medical Course. Sooner after her return from Russia in the month of July 2002 the petitioner went to live at her matrimonial house at Sector-8/C, Bokaro and in this duration the respondent used to come at Bokaro and they lived together as husband and wife. It is further submitted that when the respondent went for his private practice and D.N.B Course to Pune in the month of Feb. 2004 she also went there to live with her husband.”

4. The written statement filed on behalf of the husband questioned maintainability of the suit; the suit being barred by limitation and that no cause of action had arisen for instituting the suit. The husband admitted that he lived with his wife till 24^th April 2000 but at the same time pleaded that one week after the marriage her father took her home as she had to go to Kazakhstan for study and thereafter she did not join his company. He further averred in the written statement that after return of his wife from Kazakhstan he tried to take her to Pune where he was working but her father refused to send her. He denied the allegations of demand of dowry and torture and stated that Harla PS Case No. 31 of 2007 was a false case in which he and his family members were acquitted by the Trial Court and the Court of Sessions upheld their acquittal. He denied that he did not call his wife in the marriage of his sister, and that he had on his own withdrawn from the company of his wife without any reasonable cause. In his defence, he narrated few incidents to show that his wife was not at all willing to live with him in the matrimonial home and she did not come for shradh ceremony of his gra