V.K. Bali, J.
1. When all efforts of the respondent-husband to secure company of his wife proved abortive, he successfully maintained an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant-wife having not met with any success pleads for setting aside of the decree in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent with an obvious prayer also to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the parties (o this wedlock had only a brief peaceful period during which they were blessed with two children, a male and a female. Having been married on 28th February, 1979 they parted company on 13.11.1981, when, it appears the wife was on the family way as the female child was born in August, 1982. The male child was born on May 9, 1980. The respondent-husband, as referred to above, when tried all measures although in vain, brought about the petition culminating into this appeal on 4-5-1983. It was pleaded by the husband that respondent had left his residence on the pretext of attending the marriage of her younger sister at Ludhiana with an intention never to resume his company. Number of requests were made to regain the company of his wife which included convening and taking of various panchayats to Moga, the place where she was residing with her father. The appellant-wife contested the matter on all conceivable pleas like torture, harassment by the respondent and his relations, bad habits of husband who was branded as drunkard and also physical beatings of and on. Sub Judge 1st Class Muktsar exercising the powers the District Judge under the Hindu Marriage Act, after recording evidence of the parties came to a firm conclusion that the wife had parted the company of the husband without any sufficient cause. This finding has been upheld in an appeal preferred by the appellant wife. The main contention raised in the Letters Patent Appeal is that there could be no conceivable reason for the wife to have left the company of the husband when she had lived with him for a period of over 11/2 years and the couple was blessed with a male child at the house of the husband. That being so, it is further sought to be made out that no plausible reason having been shown by the respondent-husband particularly attributing some sort of motive against the appellant who had parted the company, it is to be presumed that her version was correct. After going through the records of the case, we, however, find no substance in the aforesaid contention of the appellant. It is proved on records of the case by oral and documentary evidence inclusive of the statement made by the wife herself in the petition filed by her under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that her brother had gone to Muktsar to take her to Ludhiana before marriage of her sister Renu Bala was solemnised. She accompanied her brother Surinder Kumar at Moga though her in-laws did not like her to go with her brother on earlier occasion but on 15.11.1981 they did not oppose her accompanying her brother to Ludhiana for attending her sister's marriage. Both of them started from Muktsar in the morning. It is admitted that the marriage of Renu Bala had taken place on 23.12.1981 just a week ago from the date the wife had left the house of her in-laws. This marriage was also attended by the respondent-husband. After she had left the matrimonial house and gone to attend the marriage of her sister, she never came back. From the aforesaid statement of the appellant as also from other evidence brought on record of the case, the learned Trial Court was absolutely justified in returning the finding that the appellant-wife had parted the company without any reasonable cause. This finding of fact having been confirmed by the First Appellate Court, which is the final Court of fact, no interference is called for nor the same is permissible unless the finding of fact be perverse. Besides that, we find from the record of the case that at every stage sincere efforts were made by the respondent-husband to secure the company of the appellant-wife. The Court also tried for the same in right earnest but it is, obviously, obduraic attitude of the wife alone which came in the way. When this appeal was admitted, by an interim order it was directed by the Motion Bench consisting of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice V. Ramaswami and G.R. Majithia, J. that the wife would go with her husband alongwith the children as husband had stated before the Court that he will set up a separate living from his father and brother and keep his wife and children with love and affection. The trial to this undertaking was given by directing that the husband will go to wife's place at Ludhiana on 16.5.1989 in order to take the wife and children to his house in Muktsar. The Reader of the Court Shri Nihal Chand Kinra was to visit the parties at Muktsar every fifteen days. He was also directed to visit Ludhiana on 16.5.1989 in order to see that the wife accompanies the husband in proper manner. To await the decision of this trial, the Court stayed all other proceedings pending between the parties inclusive of custody proceedings as also execution and attachment proceeding pendings in the Court at Ludhiana. On receipt of the report given by the Reader, it appears, it was found that even efforts made by the Court would be of no avail and therefore the order dated 10.5.1989 reference of which has been given above was withdrawn and the appeal was ordered to be heard in usual course. The report of the Reader depicts that even though the husband had come there in a car in order to take wife and the children and that all efforts were made by the Reader to persuade the wife to go with the respondent-husband but she did not go by stating that she was not well. It thus appears that the appellant-wife is not interested in continuance of the sacred matrimonial tie between her and husband. Finding no force in this appeal, we dismiss the same.
3. Before we part with the judgment it requires to be mentioned that the appellant had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses and the said application was ordered to be listed for hearing alongwith the main case. In view of the averments made by her in the application, she is clearly entitled to the maintenance pendente lite but the same cannot go beyond what was granted to her and the children by the Trial Court as there is no averment, least the proof, that the income of the husband-respondent increased after she was allowed maintenance by the Trial Court. The appellant-wife who appeared in person pleads that she was held entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,000/- i.e. Rs. 400/- were with a view to maintain her whereas Rs. 600/- were granted so as to maintain the children. It is thus ordered that the appellant would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 1000/- as maintenance pendente lite from the date of application filed by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. i.e., 20.11.1988 till today. Besides that she shall also be entitled to Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses.