Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brij Lal vs Smt. Krishna on 9 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)114PLR357
JUDGMENT
M.S. Liberhan and J.C. Verma, JJ.
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 1.2.1995 passed by District Judge, Hissar, whereby he declined to grant a decree of conjugal rights to the appellant.
2. The parties were married on 24.4.1985, cohabited together as husband and wife and ultimately parted company in March 1991. They have two minor children from this wed-lock.
3. The appellant put forth his version for parting company by averring that the respondent-wife wanted him to shift from his village where he ordinarily resides with his parents and doing cultivation, so as to start living at Hissar with the parents and other family members of the respondent-wife. He was not agreeable to this proposition of the respondent. Thereafter, she has withdrawn from the society of the appellant and refused to return to the matrimonial home without there being sufficient cause.
4. The respondent refuted the submissions made by the appellant and averred that she was maltreated turned out of the house and pressurised to bring more dowry by the appellant. When all efforts to persuade the appellant to keep her failed, she sought maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. in 1992 and the present petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed by the husband as a counter blast of her petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
5. The trial Court after examining the oral evidence of the witnesses produced by the parties in support of their respective claims inferred that since the wife lived in the village for a period of six years thus keeping in view the Hindu tradition, there cannot be sudden thought for shifting from village to Hissar and thereby rejected the version of the husband. It was observed that since the relationships of husband and wife is sacred and no wife is prepared to disrupt the matrimonial tie the version with respect to the claim of dowry having been put forth by her first, in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. prior to the filing of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, corroborates the version of the respondent-wife with respect to the demand of dowry. The filing of the application after waiting for 1-1/2 years for the grant for maintenance further supports the averment of the respondent-wife that they had been attempting for rehabilitation.
6. Large number of efforts were made by this Court as well as the trial Court for rehabilitation of the parties which resulted in fiasco. We may hasten to add that females usually considered as weaker sex are required to be protected, yet at the same time one cannot be permitted to adopt Manjor's policy i.e. neither the wife would live in the matrimonial home nor would cease the matrimonial status.
7. The reasoning adopted by the trial Court viz. living for six years together, relationship of husband and wife being sacred, version of dowry being put first in the application for maintenance, in their totality by itself cannot give an inference that wife is denying her company to the husband for a sufficient cause. It is mental attitude of the parties which is required to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each case keeping in view the stature of the parties, tradition of the parties, the ordinary course of events which have taken place, bereft of texts, scriptures or idealism, which should be judged that to make the matrimonial home and keep peace in the society, need of respect and trust of husband and wife in each other, social changes coming now on account of the Hindu Marriage Act and on account of other social awakening predominating factors, old age customs where man was treated as idol and wife was required to worship him. Nice or subtles difference and phases of individual society are invaluable in checking the danger of abstractedness in mental outlook.
8. Taking into consideration the ground realities neither a conservative view nor a liberal view can be taken. Herein from the evidence read out in Court and by observing the conduct of the respondent-wife during reconciliation proceedings, it would be reasonable to infer that the wife wants to keep away from the company of the husband on excusals. In the various attempts made in this Court for reconciliation time and again in open Court, directly and indirectly, suggest on the annals of subjective state of mind as well as objectively by reference to the respondent's intention that she does not want to restore the matrimonial life. At the same time she does not want to cease the matrimonial relationship. On the golden rule touch stone of the principle of a reasonable person, by sifting chaff, that the appellant accepted all conditions of the respondent with living at Agroha independently from his parents, depositing Rs. 5000/- to show the bonafides of the appellant to take the respondent and the children to the matrimonial home and made the same offers on innumeral occasions. Though the respondent also showed her willingness to company the appellant to Agroha yet on one pretext or the other she; did not join him. This fact is further supported by the affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Malik, Advocate, who accompanied the appellant to the house of the respondent for taking her back to his house taken on rent as desired by the Court. No counter affidavit has been filed to the same nor the facts averred were seriously even referred to much less denied during the course of arguments.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case i.e. the husband and wife having living together for six years there is nothing on record that during these six years the appellant-husband exerted or even suggested a demand for dowry. The entire conduct of the respondent in its totality leaves us in no doubt that she does not want to return to the matrimonial home. There is no sufficient cause, even remotely suggested for depriving the appellant of her company particularly when the parties belong to that state of society where wife is expected to take care of daily household affairs.
10. The concept of sacred relationship and ideal wish that no wife is prepared to disrupt the matrimonial life or putting forth the version of dowry after a lapse of 8 years without there being any documentary or other evidence worth believing would be denying a right of the husband to live at a place of his choice: with the wife. No inference can be raised in favour of the respondent particularly in a case where restitution to the matrimonial home is sought. Ordinary wear and tear of the life cannot be placed at the pedestal of sufficient clause to live separately from the husband.
11. In the absence of oral evidence which has been rejected in this case of both the parties, it was for the wife to prove that there is sufficient cause for living separately from the husband as the cause is of such a nature under which the wife cannot live with the husband or it is impossible to live with the; husband or it endanger either her peace of mind or physical life etc. It would be fatal to one and all and the society as a whole if one is to assume ordinary wear and tear of the matrimonial life as a sufficient cause for denying the matrimonial obligation to the husband. It will be in the public interest and mental welfare that a decree for restitution of conjugal right be granted to the appellant as no reliable evidence has been brought on record to hold that the respondent has sufficient cause for living separately, the onus of proving of which was on the respondent.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is granted in favour of the appellant and against the respondent. There will be no order as to costs.