( 1 ) THIS is a revision by wife-respondent in M C. No. 1 of 1983, on the file of the civil Judge, Puttur (D. K), and directed against the order dated 13. 11. 84 passed by the Civil Judge to begin her case in the first instance by adducing evidence.

( 2 ) THE learned Civil Judge appears to have thought that in a proceeding like this for restitution of conjugal rights brought under Sec. 9 of the Hindu marriage Act, by reason of explanation appended to the section, the burden lies on the petitioner herein of proving her case of reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of her husband and, therefore, she must begin first. This appears to be wholly erroneous. The respondent herein, i. e. , the husband, who has brought the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights mac'e assertion that the wife, the petitioner herein, had withdrawn from his society without any reasonable excuse and that he was therefore entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The wife in her objection statement, while refuting these assertions made by her hus- band, had contended that not only the husband was treating her with cruelty, but he had also driven her out of his house and