A husband is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act if he proves that his wife has deserted him without any justifiable cause.

1. - The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Ruchi Rani against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 302/2006 whereby, the application filed by the respondent husband under Section of the Hindu Marriage Act was accepted and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed against the appellant wife and she was directed to live together with the respondent husband and perform her matrimonial obligations.

2. Facts in brief are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 22.4.2004 at Goluwala, District Hanumangarh. A female child was born from the wedlock on 4.3.2005. The appellant wife was employed as a teacher from before the marriage. It is alleged that she left the respondent husband's Village Tibbi and went to her father's Village Goluwala after six months of the marriage. As per the Respondent husband's case, he made numerous efforts of appeasement and conciliation so that the appellant wife may come back and live with him and perform her matrimonial obligations but she refused. A Pnnchayat was also convened in the month of October 2005 wherein, relatives of both the sides were called but the proceedings proved inconclusive. In January 2006, another Panchayat was held at the house of one Chananmal Garg but the same also proved inconclusive because the wife refused to go and live with the husband. Repeated efforts were attempted for resolving the dispute between the parties but without any success.

3. Having failed in all efforts of social reconciliation to bring back his wife, the respondent husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the learned Court below seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. It was pleaded in the application that 15 days prior to the filing of the application, the respondent husband went to Goluwala for fetching the appellant wife with him and requested that she should come back and perform her matrimonial obligations but she refused pointblank. It was also pleaded that just 10 days after the marriage, the respondent husband had to separate from his parents because of the pressure of the appellant wife.

4. Upon receiving the notice of the application, the appellant wife appeared and filed a reply. It was pleaded in the reply that she was employed as a teacher in a Government School. She denied the allegation that she forced the respondent husband to live separately from his parents and refused to perform her matrimonial obligations and to cohabit with him. As per the reply, a Panchayat was convened at the Dharamshala but the same proved unsuccessful because the respondent husband and his relatives demanded money from the appellant wife and her relatives and when the demand was not met, they refused to take the appellant back to the matrimonial home. It was also alleged that the respondent husband and his family members pressurised and physically maltreated the appellant wife in relation to demand of money. She was assaulted and started feeling fear for her life. She registered a criminal case at Police Station Goluwala during investigation whereof, some Stridhan was recovered but the remaining was misappropriated by the respondent husband and his family members. The respondent husband and his family members turned the appellant wife out of the house due to greed of dowry. She was living with her father and was making her ends meet with difficulty. The appellant wife and her father convened numerous Panchayats and respondent husband was requested to take the appellant wife back to the matrimonial home. In one of the Panchayats, the respondent husband and his family members apologised for the maltreatment meted out to the wife and promised not to make any further demands from her. It was specifically pleaded that the allegation of the denial of cohabitation was apparently false because the wife bore a girl child from the husband's loins. It