C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) WIFE filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by judgment and decree dated 25-10-1996 passed in Civil Suit No. 93-A of 1993 passed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Husband aggrieved by the same, has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the wife, marriage took place on 25-5-1990 according to the Hindu rites and she stayed at her matrimonial home at Satna for about three months where the behaviour of the husband as also his family members was not good. Wife's further case is that she was neglected by the members of the husband's family and was not allowed to sit along with other family members of the husband. Wife has further stated in her application that her husband has stated to her that he intended to marry one Kumari Hemlata and she is not of his choice and his family members without obtaining his consent performed the marriage, only to obtain dowry and other valuable gifts from the family of the wife. Wife's case further is that her husband avoided her by not giving her company and treated her in an indecent manner. According to the wife he demanded a huge amount for purchase of a car, but the same was refused on the ground that her brother and other family members have already given adequate gifts at the time of performance of the marriage. It is the allegation of the wife that on 15-10-1991, she was driven out from the matrimonial home and asked to bring money for purchase of the car. It is the allegation of the wife that she came to Jabalpur empty handed and although she had written letters to her husband requesting him to come to Jabalpur and take her to the matrimonial home, he has not come. It is further stated that she has been thrown out of the matrimonial home as her husband wants to marry another lady. In the aforesaid premises, the wife prayed for decree for restitution of conjugal rights. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the husband, the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights is fit to be dismissed because several other cases are pending in other Courts between the parties. In the aforesaid premises, the wife prayed for decree for restitution of conjugal rights. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the husband, the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights is fit to be dismissed because several other cases are pending in other Courts between the parties. Details of the cases have been given in paragraph 1 of the written statement and the same pertain to application filed by the wife for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, criminal case under Section 494, I. P. C. , petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the petition filed for recovery of the amount given at the time of marriage. It is the stand of the husband that his behaviour and that of his family members was very affectionate towards the wife. According to the husband, his wife belonged to a rich family, she was in the habit of going out and spent levishly and because of (her) arrogant nature, she could not adopt the culture of his family. According to the husband the wife's assertion that she will stay at Satna or Jabalpur according to her wishes, was the main bone of contention. The allegation made by the wife of demand of dowry and money for purchase of car have been denied by the husband. His stand is that sufficient dowry was given to him. Husband has further stated in the written statement that the wife was asked to adopt cultures and conventions of his family, but the same was not acceded to. According to the husband, she was very proud of being financially sound and her needs were not possible to be fulfilled by him from the salary which he gets as an employee of the Bank as he is to support his mother and brother also. It is the allegation of the husband that the wife is staying at her mother's place out of his ownvolition and he as also his other family members made attempts to bring her to the matrimonial home, but she always refused. It is the allegation of the husband that the wife is staying at her mother's place out of his ownvolition and he as also his other family members made attempts to bring her to the matrimonial home, but she always refused. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge framed various issues including the issue as to whether the wife was sent to her parents place by the husband on 15-10-1991 in order to perform second marriage and the learned Judge after recording the finding in favour of the wife passed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. It is relevant here to state that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed on 28-4-1993 and although the husband appeared before the trial Court, but later on absented and by judgment and decree dated 30-9-1994 the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, husband filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was allowed and ex parte decree was set aside. Thereafter wife in support of her case examined altogether five witnesses. P. W. 1 is the wife herself whereas P. W. 2 Prakash Keshawani is her brother. No witness has been examined on behalf of the husband nor the witnesses examined by the wife have been cross-examined by him. ( 4 ) SHRI S. R. Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the husband having been not given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below is fit to be set aside and the matter is fit to be remitted back to the trial Court for allowing the husband to cross-examine the witnesses and lead his own evidence. The case in hand, is an example of use of all the dilatory tactics for postponing the hearing of the suit and it goes to the credit of the learned Judge Mrs. Maitreyi Mathur, who was in seisin of the matter that in spite of total non-co-operation by the husband, and all dilatory tactics, she had been able to effectively control the proceeding. It is relevant here to state that petition for restitution of conjugal rights was presented on 28-4-1993 and the husband appeared through counsel on 21-5-1993 and prayed for time to file written statement. It is relevant here to state that petition for restitution of conjugal rights was presented on 28-4-1993 and the husband appeared through counsel on 21-5-1993 and prayed for time to file written statement. Thereafter he appeared on several dates, but ultimately abstained himself and the ex parte judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed. Ultimately, after setting aside the ex parte decree, husband appeared on 10-10-1995 and he was directed to file the written statement by 14-11-1995. This was not done and on the prayer made by the husband the case was adjourned to 28-11-95. On the said date also written statement was not filed and time for filing the written statement was granted on payment of cost of Rs. 75/- and the case was adjourned to 21-12-1995. On the said date also written statement was not filed and the case was adjourned to 16-1-1996 for filing of the written statement on payment of cost of Rs. 75/ -. Husband did not choose to file the written statement by 16-1-1996 and on the said date the case was adjourned to 6-2-1996. Ultimately after four adjournments and approximately after about four months the husband filed written statement. It is relevant here to state that on 14-10-1996 the trial Court fixed 24-10-1996 as the date for recording evidence after rejecting the application filed by the husband under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. On 24-10-1996 which was the date fixed for recording of evidence, husband filed an application for time for going in revision. The same was rejected and later on, the husband came out with another plea that the counsel is not prepared in the case and the case may be adjourned for cross-examination of the witnesses. Learned Judge rejected the said prayer and on doing so counsel left the Court room. Witnesses were examined and in the absence of the counsel for the husband, they were not cross-examined and after the argument was heard, the case was posted for judgment on 25-10-1996 and the judgment was accordingly delivered. It is relevant here to state that the wife was examined on 6-8-1996 as also another witness Prakash Keshwarwani on 6-8-1996 and after their examination-in-chief, the case was adjourned to 13-8-1996 at the request of the husband. It is relevant here to state that the wife was examined on 6-8-1996 as also another witness Prakash Keshwarwani on 6-8-1996 and after their examination-in-chief, the case was adjourned to 13-8-1996 at the request of the husband. On the said date, the learned Judge made it clear that as the case is pending since 1993, the parties shall take the judicial proceeding seriously and the case was adjourned to 13-8-1996. On the said date, Shri S. R. Singh, Advocate filed his power and filed application for adjournment of the case. The learned Judge granted the said prayer and adjourned the case to 23-8-1996 with a direction that the parties shall bring their witnesses. When matter was taken up on 12-9-1996, the Court was informed through the clerk of the counsel for the respondent that he is busy in another Court. Learned Judge rejected the said prayer and in my opinion rightly on the ground that the case was fixed for arguments on the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. The order sheet of the learned Judge shows that she waited for the counsel till 3. 45 p. m. on the said date and fixed the case for orders on 24-9-1996 and on the said date, the case was adjourned to 30-9-1996. On the said date again, prayer for adjournment was made for argument on the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. which was granted and ultimately the matter was heard on 14-10-1996. The said application was rejected and the case was adjourned to 24-10-1996 for evidence. What has happened on 24-10-1996 before the trial Court could be well described by quoting her order itself :"24-10-96parties absent. 11. 5 A. M. Case called thrice. Put up later on. Sd/-ADJ. Later on : 1. 5 p. m. Applicant by Shri Dolani. NA by Shrian application under Order 17 Rule 1, C. P. C. filed on the ground of going in revision. This is not a sufficient cause to adjourn the case, hence the application is rejected. Case proceeds for evidence as the witnesses are present. Sd/-ADJ. Later on - 1. 10 p. m. Counsel for the NA submits that he is not prepared with the case, hence the case be taken up tomorrow for the cross-examination of the witness. This is not a sufficient cause to adjourn the case, hence the application is rejected. Case proceeds for evidence as the witnesses are present. Sd/-ADJ. Later on - 1. 10 p. m. Counsel for the NA submits that he is not prepared with the case, hence the case be taken up tomorrow for the cross-examination of the witness. Since the adjournment cannot be granted on these grounds, as the witnesses present and vide order sheet dated 6-8-1996 the note was made that the judicial proceedings shall be taken seriously as the case is pending since 1993, now the case cannot be adjourned only because the counsel is not prepared for which no sufficient reasons have been assigned. In view of these facts PW Gopal Das is discharged after examination. When the examination of Dilip started the counsel for the NA Shri Soni and Shri Singh have left the Court room. Sd/-ADJ. Later on - 1. 14 p. m. to 1. 30 p. m. Applicant with Shri Mohan. NA absent. Case called thrice. NA is absent. His counsel also absent. No reason has come forward for their absence. As has been observed earlier at 1. 10 p. m. the counsel of the NA had left the Court room and did not come back to participate in the proceedings, hence there is no option, but to proceed exparte. PW Dilip and Ramesh discharged after examination. Applicant closed her case. Final arguments heard. Case for judgment 25-10-96. Sd/-ADJ" ( 5 ) FACTS depicted above clearly show that the husband adopted all dilatory tactics to postpone the hearing of the case. Learned Judge because of her firmness was able to control the proceeding. She must have been conscious that the proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act is required to be decided within six months from the date of the appearance of the other side. In the present case, the petition being pending since 28-4-1993, the learned Judge could not and should not have been liberal in matters of granting adjournment. Critic say that the judicial system is suffering from the malady of delay and has questioned the justice delivery system on this score. The maxim justice delayed is justice denied applies with more vigour in matrimonial matter. Critic say that the judicial system is suffering from the malady of delay and has questioned the justice delivery system on this score. The maxim justice delayed is justice denied applies with more vigour in matrimonial matter. In this backdrop, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the husband was not given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is without any substance. It is his own creation and he has to bear for the same. Counsel for the appellant did not address on the merits of the case and rightly so as the witnesses examined on behalf of the wife have supported her case and in the absence of any cross-examination, the learned Judge was right in placing reliance on them. ( 6 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with cost. Hearing fee Rs. 5,000/ -. Appeal dismissed .