The burden of proving reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of the other party under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act lies on the person who has withdrawn, and vague and general allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment are not sufficient to establish such reasonable excuse.

( 1 ) THIS appeal on behalf of the wife under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act ) is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated November 30, 1979 for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent husband. The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites at Delhi on May 6, 1968. The appellant was employed as a teacher while the respondent was employed as Junior Engineer in Central Public works Department at Delhi on a transferable post. The respondent alleges that at time of marriage it was agreed that the appellant would leave her job and join him in case of his transfer out side Delhi. After the solemnisation of the marriage parties lived at houses bearing municipal number 1439/1452, Gali Murli Ban Wali, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Delhi and they went to Nanital for sometime. Sometime in July 1968 the appellant started insisting upon the respondent to live separately from his parents. He did not agree, being the only son of his parents. The appellant thereafter started misbehaving with the respondent and his relations i. e. his parents and sisters. She started fighting on trifles without any justification. The respondent and his relations, it is said, tolerated her behaviour. In April 1971 the respondent was transferred to Calcutta where he joined duty on April 12, 1971. The appellant was requested sometimes in June 1971 to resign and join him at Calcutta but the respondent was told that she was in a family way and would join him after delivery. The appellant gave birth to a daughter on October 15, 1971 but she still refused to join the respondent at Calcutta? Respondent s sister shifted to Calcutta in May 1972. Appellant it appears also visited the respondent at Calcutta for sometime during school vacation. She however did not resign and did not shift to Calcutta. The respondent thus remained at Calcutta and the appellant in Delhi. In May 1973 respondent s mother fell seriously ill. He came to Delhi to look after his mother in. June 1973. It is alleged that the appellant was requested to attend her mother-in-law but she avoided. The respondent s mother died in July 1973.

( 2 ) MARRIGE of appellant s brother was fixed for October 1. 1973. The appellant, it is alleged with a view to attend her brother s marriage took away all jewellery and clothes from the house of her father-in-law and on September 20, 1973 she went to her parents house to attend the marriage of her brother. The respondent came down from Calcutta on September 30, 1973 to attend the marriage. The respondent and his relations also attended the marriage on October 1, 1973 but thereafter the appellant never returned to the matrimonial home. The respondent in his petition for restitution of conjugal rights also alleges that the appellant did not return without any excuse. In August 1974 the respondent was transferred back to Delhi but the appellant did not join him. Efforts were made by the relations and friends for reconciliation but without any result. The respondent sent a notice dated October 30, 1974 requesting her to return and avoid unhappiness in life. The appellant however did not respond, and sent a reply dated November 19, 1974. Finding no response from the appellant, the respondent filed the present petition under section 9 of the Act on May 12, 1975 alleging the said facts and requesting for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

( 3 ) THE appellant in her written statement denies the alleged agreement before marriage regarding leaving her teaching job and joining him at his place of posting if and when he was to be transferred from Delhi. She alleges that she never desired the respondent to live separately from his parents and have a separate house. She says that their treatment towards her was taunting, unbearable and insulting. She says that their behaviour was abusive. She was used to live in large accomodation but she continued