The National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Ravi & Others

Present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at the instance of defendant/wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in RCS No.10-A/2006.

Parties are referred to as they were before the Family Court.

The application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was instituted by the plaintiff/husband seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, pleading that he is a business man having a jewelery shop in joint ownership with his elder brother, whereas the defendant/wife is working in the Reserve Bank of India at M.P. Nagar, Bhopal. He has further pleaded that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.04.2003, according to the Hindu rites and customs at Jaipur. After entering into the wedlock, they lived together with the joint family at Bhopal. However, after some time the defendant/wife started misbehaving with his family members. She wanted him to ask for his share in the business and property and to live separately with her. During this time, a male child was borne to them but the defendant did not change ways and due to her demand for partition and separation, arguments and quarrels occurred between the parties. The plaintiff/husband refused to accede to her demand, therefore, she went to her parents house in December,

2004. The plaintiff has further pleaded that he filed an application before the Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra on 31.12.2004 but she did not appear there and since then she has been living with their parents and withdrawn herself from his society without any justifiable reason. It is stated that all the efforts made by the husband as well as by his parents to discuss with her to find out a solution, went in vain. In this backdrop, a prayer was made for restitution of conjugal rights.

The defendant/wife resisted the aforesaid stand contending interalia that plaintiff and his family members always ill-treated her. They took her salary and beat her up when she refused to give. She has also stated that plaintiff/husband and his family members pressurized her to take a loan of Rs.10 lacs from the Bank, which they wanted to use in their business. She further contended that despite number of servants employed in the house, she was forced to work in the house and made to eat stale food. She has further stated that due to their disagreements, she went to Jaipur on 02.05.2004 and returned to Bhopal on 28.10.2004 with her brother. However, she was forced out of the house on 30.12.2004, hence went to Jaipur with her brother and mother. She has further asserted that she wants and ready to live with plaintiff if he agrees to stay separately from his family and acts and live according to her wishes.

The learned Family Judge, framed issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, came to hold that the defendant/wife has not been able to prove cruelty and demand by the plaintiff and his parents and that she had deserted him without any valid reason and hence, the husband was entitled for a decree of conjugal rights.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Family Court, the wife has preferred the present appeal.

On behalf of the appellant/wife, it is urged that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed on assumption and presumption. The family Court has not considered that she had suffered humiliation and hardships at the hands of plaintiff/husband and his family members and was thrown out of the house by her in-laws. According to learned counsel, the Family Court has not appreciated the said facts in correct prospective and the finding regarding desertion by her is contrary to the evidence on record and if she is forced to reside in the the joint family alongwith her in-laws, her son's future will be spoiled.

Learned counsel for the respondent/ husband, on the other hand, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below has rightly passed the decree.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

P.W.-1, husband in his evidence has stated that he was living in a joint family alongwith his parents, brother and sister, even prior to the marriage and their business of jewelery shop is also joint. He has stated that the defendant/wife wanted him to seek partition of family property and business and stay independently with her in a separate house. He has stated that any partition of family business will not only effect the name and reputation of their business but will also harm it. It has been further stated that due to disagreement between them, the wife went to Jaipur in May, 2004 and come back in October, 2004, after five months, thereafter, in December, 2004, she again fought with him on the same issue and after calling her brother, left the matrimonial house on 30.12.2004 alongwith her brother.

These facts are not denied by the defendant/wife (D.W.-1), on the contrary she had admitted and corroborated that she left the matrimonial house on 30.12.2004 as, the plaintiff/husband has refused to live away from his family. D.W.-1 wife has also admitted that she was dropped to and picked up from her work place by the plaintiff.

It is borne out of the record that the defendant/wife is living separately from her husband since December, 2004, for the reason that plaintiff/husband did not accede to her demand of partition and living separately. It is also established from the record that in February, 2005, she got allotted a govt. quarter/house in her name at Bhopal and without informing the husband started living there. It is also evident from the statement of the wife that the husband had made efforts to resolve the dispute. She has admitted that she does not want to live in joint family but agreeable to live with her husband in a separate house and refused the suggestion of the court to go with her husband. It is clear from the above that the wife is not prepared to go back to her matrimonial house. There is no cogent and reliable evidence that there was cruelty and demand or pressure made on her for taking loan by the husband or his family members. Whereas, the husband has been able to prove that the wife has deserted him without reasonable cause.

Under the circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in passing the decree of restitution for conjugal rights.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the decree for conjugal rights is hereby affirmed and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.