customs. The marriage was arranged between the appellant and the respondent by the elders of both sides. After the marriage, the appellant and the respondent resided at the house of the appellant as a joint family. The matrimonial life between the appellant and the respondent was quite happy and that the appellant provided all comforts and luxuries to the respondent befitting his status. As the respondent was pregnant, in accordance with the prevailing custom, she was sent to her parents house for delivery of the child during July 2009 and on 22.10.2009, the respondent gave birth to a female child by name Yati. According to the appellant, after delivery of the female child, the respondent came back to the matrimonial home along with the female child during January 2010. However, after birth of the female child, the attitude and behaviour of the respondent had dramatically changed and the respondent did not allow the appellant to touch her or the female child and the appellant was forced to sleep separately. According to the appellant, the respondent started quarrelling with the appellant even for a trivial affair and that she insisted upon security and safety of herself and the new born child. According to the appellant, he suffered financial loss in the business carried on along with his father and that the respondent was under the impression that the appellant could not take care of her and the new born child financially. Even though the appellant assured the respondent that her interest will be protected, the respondent refused to heed to such assurances and started making false allegations against the appellant and his father by stating that they are worthless. The appellant and his family were shocked to note such a discourteous behaviour on the part of the respondent. In fact, the parents of the appellant have also given an option to take a separate house. However, by citing the lack of financial security for herself and the new born child, the respondent left the matrimonial home during June 2010 by stating that her parents have asked her to come back and she will lead a peaceful life in her parents house. The best efforts taken by the appellant to meet the respondent on the eve of marriage anniversary and on the birth date of the minor child resulted in humiliation at the hands of the respondent and her parents. According to the appellant, he was always ready and willing to live with the respondent and the efforts taken by him to rejoin the respondent went in vain. Therefore, he has filed O.P. No. 2616 of 2012 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
