IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.10.2025 Neetu Rani Satija ...Appellant Versus Pankaj Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

CM-17421-CII-2025 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 76 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

FAO-5204-2025

1. The appellant/respondent (wife) assails judgment and decree dated

13.03.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Sangrur, whereby a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the HMA’) filed by the respondent (husband) for restitution of conjugal rights has been decreed.

2. The case set up by the respondent (husband) in his petition under Section

9 of the HMA is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 01.12.2017 in a simple ceremony wherein no dowry article was demanded or given to the respondent or to any member of his family. The appellant (wife) was a divorcee at the time of marriage. After the marriage, the parties started residing in the house of respondent (husband) at Sangrur and a child was born out of the wedlock on 17.03.2019. However, there used to be quarrels between the parties on petty issues, which somehow could not be resolved. The respondent (husband) averred that the present appellant (wife) was running IELTS Center at Sandaur, District Malerkotla being its partner and she had been insisting upon the respondent (husband) to reside at Ahmedgarh, but the respondent (husband) did not agree for the same, as he had his aged parents to look after. It was averred that the appellant (wife) represented that in case she leaves the institute, she will be required to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as penalty, but despite repeated requests by respondent, she never showed any such agreement to the respondent (husband). The respondent further averred in his petition that his wife i.e. the appellant, was of quarrelsome nature and used to quarrel with his mother on the one pretext or the other and although efforts were made to reason out with her, but to no avail. The respondent averred that after the appellant (wife) had left her matrimonial home, he visited her several times in the house of her parents, but even they misbehaved with him and that he was left with no option, but to file the instant petition.

3. The appellant (wife) filed her reply, wherein she took a stand that huge amount had been spent on the marriage and articles of dowry in the shape of air conditioner, gold ornaments, furniture, valuable clothes etc. were given to the respondent (husband) and to other members of his family. The appellant while denying all the material averments alleged that the respondent (husband) and the members of his family were greedy persons and compelled her to work in a private school and used to keep her salary. She further asserted that the respondent (husband) and his family started misbehaving with her and demanded more dowry and on account of which she even filed a complaint with the police but the matter was later on compromised. She further asserted that in September, 2020, the respondent (husband) left her at her parental home and imposed a condition that she would not be rehabilitated unless an amount of Rs.5 lakhs is paid to him.

4. The Family Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights? OPP

2. Releif.”

5. While the respondent (husband) himself stepped into the witness-box as PW-1 and also examined Neelam Rani as PW-2 to substantiate his case, the appellant (wife) neither herself stepped into the witness-box nor did she examine any other witness to rebut the evidence led by the respondent (husband).

6. The Family Court upon appreciating the evidence on record returned its finding on Issue No.1 in favour of the respondent (husband) and consequent