P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-3-2011 in M.C. No. 1487 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru allowing the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and dismissing the counter-claim filed by the wife seeking Divorce.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnised on 25-10-1988 at Guru Bhavan, Kollegal District. The couple have a male child born on 24-10-2000.

3. The averments contained in the petition filed before the Court below by the respondent disclose that the appellant went to her parents house for delivery and did not return to the matrimonial home. Efforts made by the husband to persuade the appellant to return to the matrimonial home did not yield any results. The husband initially wrote a letter requesting the appellant to join him in the matrimonial home. The said letter remained undelivered. The respondent got a legal notice issued on 14-6-2002 calling upon the appellant to join him. The appellant filed a complaint of down harassment against the respondent and his family members on 24-6-2002.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed the instant petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Family Court on 22-10-2002 praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant contested the petition and also filed a counter-claim praying for a decree of divorce. After trial, the Family Court has allowed the petition filed by the respondent and dismissed the counter-claim by the appellant. Hence, this appeal.

5. We have heard Sri N.K. Siddeswara, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contends that the family members of the respondent were ill-treating and abusing her. There was a demand for dowry and her parents paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as dowry. In view of continued harassment, the appellant was compelled to lodge a complaint for offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said complaint is registered as FIR in Crime No. 223 of 2002 and pending adjudication in C.C. No. 790 of 2003 on the file of the ACMM, Bengaluru.

7. He submits that the respondent has filed the instant petition only to cover the ill-treatment meted out by him and his family members against the appellant. As a matter of fact, the respondent has always been keen to obtain a decree of divorce, which is manifest by his conduct in filing an application dated 16-11-2013 in Execution Proceedings No. 128 of 2011 on the file of III Principal Family Judge at Bengaluru. He adverted to the contents of the said application and submitted that the respondent has categorically sought fora direction to the appellant from the Family Court for divorce.

8. He submits that the respondent has made serious allegations against the appellant with regard to her chastity in his pleadings in G & WC No. 45 of 2013 on the file of Principal Family Judge at Bengaluru. He submits that in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition, the respondent has alleged that the appellant is leading an adulterous life. He further submits that the similar allegations are also found in the statement of objections (para 13) filed by the respondent in C. Misc. No. 480 of 2012 on the file of III Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru.

9. Thus, in sum and substance, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the respondent and his family members have harassed her for dowry and ill-treated her. The petition filed by respondent for restitution of conjugal rights is only to cover the unjust treatment meted out against the appellant and cruelty inflicted on her.

10. Assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the appellant strongly contends that th