1N THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF oiHHATrISGARH AT BxLASPUR (c G ) FIRST APPEALLWNO T3 OF 2007 l APP/ELLANT ‘: I , éhlad J?lswal sQnv of Shri, (”K ’ _ NatthanlalJaiswal aged about 37 'years, ReSldent of Lal Bahadur hstri Wrd haar, Pol’ ‘ ._ . .... taara - e“‘eafL _ x c . ,C. _Psenty dihg- /o 's hhu’n 'h lag and Pst Arjuni, olie- taion A ai (cG.‘ RESPjjNDENT : )ajhwm Jalswal Wife of Shrl aged about 28 V ' s s,‘R tr, ‘ , ta hpa (), hil Bathpa, Distri Rapur Tas haar‘ ct i (.G). rel resi 'C Bhairoo'a @ Ctta’ Sina, Vile, o Pc St rjuni, District Dhamtr V.).~ FIRST APPEAL UNDER'SECTION 28’0F‘ THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,19551 “ mguw ... Station ’Bhahp (Town), wesw@$ArT-§9f_ . sm “ Tahsu Bhathapara Distrit Raipur m ,(‘CG) IVERSUS esa rl ahad Jalswal q b g 0%Sa a Bhatpa ice § yeare5Ident Shatrl Ward Bhahapaa of Lal Bahadur Police i Stion Bathara Town\ @ Him-i COUR‘Y 9F CHHATT§SGARF3 AT B3LASPUR Fia’st Appeal (M) Na. ?3 af 2W? $PPELLANT Prahiad Jaiswal vefsu$ RE$P9NDENT Raieshwaré Jaa‘swai FIRST APPEAL {mDER SECTION 28 0;“: TH£ HINDU MARREAGEACT _ \fQ S.B. : HON’aLE SHRI MK. AGARWAL J PRESENT :— Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel fer the appeiiant. Shri R,K. Pali, counse‘ for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (15.02.2013) 1. ThevappeaL in a matrimonial case, is by the hueband and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29092007 l passed by Additional Dietrict Judge, Bhathapara, in Civil Suit No‘ 14-AI2007, dismissing the appeHant’s application filed under J. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act') for restitution of conjugai rights. 2. Facts of the case in brief are as under: {i} The marriage between appeiiant Prahiad Jaiswai and respondent Rajeshwari Jaiswai was solemnized sometime in the month of Juiy, 2002 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Femaie chiid Megha was born out of the wediock, who is iiving with the respondent. Admittediy, the marriage tasted upto to 25.5.20t33. (ii) Appeiiantletaintiff fiied an appiication against the respondent for restitution of ooniugai rights inter alia on the @ ground that the respondent is giving separately without any reasonabie excuse. (iii) By filing written statement, the respondent denied the avermente made in the appticatton. (iv) it was the respondent's case that she was beaten and mat treated by the husband, who atso thrown her away from the matrimontat home. tt was further case of the respondent that appettant used to beat her for demand of dowry and he 8: his famity members became so cruel that she was rescued and handed over to the police by the neighbour‘ Poiice on her comptaint registered a criminai case under Section 493-A of the IPC against the appettant which is pending. (v). The trial Courtron a ctose scruttny of the evidence tedf dismissed the appeiiant’s application. Hence this appeal. 3. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including judgment & decree impugned. 4. A bare perusal of the evidence available on record, it woutd be crystal clear that it is the behaviour of the appellant which was responsible for respondent living separately, inasmuch as, the respondent was mat treated and given beating by the appellant. 5. lt is trite law that a party cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. Moreover, as per appellant’s counsel, respondent has also filed divorce petition against the appellant. 5‘ Considering every aspect of the matter, in my opinion, the appeiiant utterly failed to prove that respondent is iiving separateiy without any reasonable excuse and the triai Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the appeiiant’s application warranting interference of this Court in the instant appeal. Y. As a result, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be , sfd/L” ' N.K. Agrawal x Judge and is hereby dismissed. No crder asto costs.