In a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner must show that he or she has a bona fide desire to resume matrimonial cohabitation and to render the rights and duties of matrimonial life.

( 1 ) THE facts leading to this appeal succinctly are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised in accordance with Hindu ceremonies and rites on 9th, December 1978 at Ghaziabad to which place the paretns of the appellant belong. Thereafter, the parties lived together at Delhi as husband and wife uptil 8th August 1979 on which date the appellant is stated to have gone to her parents house for performing Raksha Bandhan ceremony. However, she did not return despite efforts allegedly made by the respondent and his father etc. repeatedly to bring her back. Thereupon, in February 1980 the respondent moved a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant did not file any written statement in the said petition as the efforts on the part of the Court to bring about reconciliation bore fruit. So, on 22nd of May 1980 the appellant joined the company of the respondent and went back to the matrimonial home alongwith him from the court premises itself. However, resumption of cohabitation by them was only short-lived as, according to the respondent, on 22nd June 1980 again the appellant left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason and without informing any member of the household. Since, she had left stealthily at about 9. CO P. M. the respondent and members of his family felt worried and in their anxiety the respondent sent a telegram to his in-laws at Ghaziabad. On the next day the appellant returned to her matrimonial home alongwith her father after being reprimanded by her father. However, on 14th July, 1980 again she departed from the matrimonial home in the Company, of her father without any rhyme or reasons. Thereupon, the respondent moved a fresh petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the very next day, viz. 15th July 1980. He inter alia, contended that the appellant s father did not have the courtesy of approaching the respondent and his father even formally, rather he reported the matter to the police and took her away. Thus, according to him, the appellant had deserted him and withdrawn from his society without any reasonable and sufficient cause.

( 2 ) THE petition was resisted by the appellant primarily on the ground that the respondent and members of his family especially his mother and sister had been treating her with great cruelty. She was tortured not only physically but even mentally. Her life was made a hell and on occasions she was not provided even with bare necessities of life like food and clothing and she was made to work like a domestic servant from 4. 00 A. M. till late at night. Moreover, the respondent and her mother-in-law used to taunt her about inadequacy of the dowry. She denied that she had withdrawn from the society of the respondent without any reasonable cause and asserted that in fact the respondent himself had no genuine desire to keep her as during her stay with him she was through out treated with cruelty by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law etc. As for the previous petition for conjugal rights, she admitted having returned to her matrimonial home but asserted that even after reconciliation she was treated with grave cruelty, degree of which was severer than that of previous cruelties. Under the compelling circumstances, therefore, she had to write to her parents but even they were not allowed to enter her matrimonial home by the respondent and his mother. Thereupon, her father sought police protection and she was got released by her parents with police help. The learned trial Court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties :

1. Whether there is reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of the petitioner by the respondent ? 2, Whether the petition has not been verified according to law as alleged ? If so, its effect ? 3. Relief.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional District Judge found issue No. I against the appellant and awarded a decree for re