•^^ HI@H COURT OF CHHATTIsaARH AT BILASPUR First (M) No.64 of 2008 DB: Hon-bte Mr.T.P. ohapma. Hon'bte 'Mr.R. N. Chondr'sksr, JJ. AppeJlant Appilcant Kamta Prasad .S/o Shanti Prasad, aged obout 23 year^, resldent of viiiacie-Korkoma, Chow.ki - ftajgamar, Tuh und Distt.Korba (C6] Vsrsus Ressondent Nors-Qppiicant Smt.LatQ ©Santoshi, W/o Kamta Prasad, aaed about 20 yeors, S/o. at MasGniya Kala. P.S. and Tah. Sakti. &jstt.Jar3Jgjr-Char?ipa at present R/o. C/o. Dsspak Dubey, Purani Basts, Korba Distt.Korba (CS) v (FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAAAIIY COURTS ACT 1984) Present : Mr. Kalyan Kalamkar, counsel for the appeliant. Mr.Je.et Patsi, counse! for* th©respondent. ORAL (Passed on 18'" September, 2009) Ths judgment of ths Court was deiivered by T.P.Sharma, J.:- 1. Th.e appeiiant hos fj'ed thls flrst appea! under Section .19 (1) of the FamiJy Courts .Act, 1984 against the judgment .and decree dated 4,4.2008 pGSsed by the Jud9e, Family Court, Korba, in Clyil 'Suit No.58 A/2007 whereby and whereunder learned Judge, FamJiy Court hos dismissed the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (i-n short, 'the Act, 1955') for re-stitutjon of \ conjugal rlghts of the o^peitont figainst h.is wlfe/respondent. T^ ^^ ^•11 »», 'o^ry 2. The judgment and decree is challenged on the ground that the Court be!ow has not considered the evidence of the appeilant and his wjtnesses, which are sufficient for drawing inference that the respondent/wife is not residing with the oppelhnt without there being any reasonabte cause and has deserted him and fajted to discharge marital obligation. 3. Brief facts Seading to filing of this appea' are that the appeHant and the respondent are !ega!!y wedded husbond and wife- The respondent Is not residing with the appeHant and has left the house of the cypellant. The respondent toJd the appelicint that she is having iliicit rehtion with one driver» She hcis refused to dsscharge her marjtal obligation and !eft the house of the appeibnt in the month of May, ?007. On the basis of desertion by the respondent, the appeibnt has fiied the petition for restitution of conjuga! rights under Section 9 of the Act, 1955» The present respondcnt has denied the Gllegation and teveited the charge of demand of dowry ond crueit^. 4« After affording o.n opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Court beSow has dismlssed the petjtion for restitution of conjugal rights by the Judgment and decree impugned. 5» We have heard learned counsel for the parties andk perused the judgrnient and decree Impugned and record of the Court bebw. 6- LeQrned counse! for the appeHant submits that the respondent has informed the appelbnt that she is.having jilicit r^btion with one drjyer ond presently, she is reslding with one driver as his wife and has wiiifuliy deserted the appe!!ont. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has committed cruelty and torture upon the respondent and it is not safe for her to live with the appe!!ant and discharge miarita! obligation. 8. In order to appreciate the grounds raised by the parties, we have exQmined the evidence available on record- Jhe cppelSant has examined himself and deposed that on the first night of marrio.ge, the respondent refused for cohabitation. She does not like the appe!!ant. She is having !ove affairs with one driver and she wi!l marry wjth the said driver. He has aiso deposed that marriage has not been consumed ond fina!Sy in the month,of May, 2007 withln 3 months of hls marrjage, the respondent left the house of the appejhnt. Raju Prasad ^upta (PW-2) has a!so supported the statement of the appeilant. Tne respondent has examined herse!f and specificaljy deposed that she resided with the appelbnt for 3 months and discharged marita! obligation. AAarriage has been consumed. She is not having any iilicit relatlon with any driver- The appel'ant used to demand dowry and committed torture and cruelty upon her and assauited her. The appe!hnt assaulted in the msonth of May, 2007 and then she has todged the report against him, She has denled the adverse suggestion made by the appeibnt. The appeSbnt has denied the suggestion of demand of dowry and cruelty, but has admitted that before taking the respondent by his father-in-iaw from his house, he has bdged the report m the poiice chowki-Rajgamar^ The present appeiiant has made serious albgation against the respondent, eyen marriage has not been consumed and she has refused for cohabitation on the first night of marriage and she is haying i!!iclt relation with one driver, but he has not deposed the name of that driyer. He has not ousted the respondent on the first day of his mQrriage, inter alia, before taking the rcspondent fromthe house of the appetbnt, father of 1+ie respondent has bdged the report It support the pieadsng of the respondent that the respondent is residing separately from her husband under reasonable case< ^ y-^-J*^ ^.^ ^ ^ '.^.T- 9< After appreciating the evidence avaibble on record, ieGrned Judge, FamlJy Court has djsmissed the petitior? fiSed under Section 9 of the Act, 1955< After going through the record, statement of the witnesses and the Judgment and decree Jmpugned, we are of the considered view that the Court below has neither corpmitted any illegality nor any jnfirmity in dismissing the petition. We do not fjnd orsy substance in the oppeal. 10. Consequently^ the appea! being devold of merit is !iabte to be dismsssed and it is hereby dismissed«No order as to costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly. ——^ Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge B/- 1—'