ORDER :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. Since both the appeals are arisen out of a common order, they are being decided by this common order.

2. Both these appeals have been preferred by the appellant wife against the order of the learned Family Court, Ajmer passed on 23.8.2018 whereby the learned Family Court allowed Matrimonial Application No. 76/2011, dissolving the marriage, filed by the respondent husband u/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") and dismissed the Application No. 260/2011 filed by the appellant wife against respondent husband u/s 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. Brief facts giving rise to these appears are that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with respondent as per Hindu rites and customs on 14.2.2009 at Ajmer. The spouses are blessed with son; namely, Pratham on 1.1.2010. Respondent husband filed divorce petition u/s 13 of the Act on 10.2.2011. During pendency of the divorce petition, the appellant wife filed an application u/s 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights on 10.6.2011. Divorce petition had been filed by the respondent on the ground of cruelty. In this petition, the respondent stated that on very first night of their marriage the appellant told him that she wanted a separate house in which she, respondent and their children would live. She did not do the household work and threatened them. If compelled to do the household work, she would register false case of divorce against them. She also threatened them that if her wishes were not fulfilled, she would commit suicide. She also used to abuse his mother and grand-mother. She leave matrimonial home in June, 2009. After birth of child, she had not joined him after several requests.

4. The appellant in her reply denied all the allegations levelled against her. In her reply, she stated that due to adamant behaviour of respondent and his mother, she was compelled to live in her father's house. She had fulfilled the duties & liabilities as a legally wedded wife. She had not abused her mother-in-law and grand-mother-in-law. She had not demanded separate house. She wanted to live with respondent, so she had not made any criminal case against them. After delivery of male child, the respondent had not taken her to matrimonial home. Respondent deserted her without any cause, so she had filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed five issues for adjudication:

^^1- vk;k vizkfFkZ;k dk O;ogkj izkFkhZ ds lkFk ;kfpdk esa of.kZr vk/kkjks ij Øwjrkiw.kZ jgk gS\

2- vk;k izkFkhZ] vizkfFkZ;k ds fo:) mDr vk/kkjksa ij fookg foPNsn dh fMØh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

3- vk;k ;kfpdk laΠ260@11 varxZr /kkjk 9 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e] iwtk cuke /kessZUnz esa of.kZrkuqlkj vizkfFkZ;k us izkfFkZ;k dk fcuk fdlh ;qfDr;qDr ls oafpr dj j[kk gS\

4- vk;k ;kfpdk laŒ260@11 esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij izkfFkZ;k iwtk] vizkFkhZ /kesZUnz ds fo:) nkEiR; laca/kks ds iquLFkkiuk dh fMØh ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS\

5- vuqrks"k\^^

6. The appellant examined herself as NAW-1. Respondent examined himself as AW-1 and two other persons - Indira Sankhla AW-2 and Praveen Sankhla AW-3.

7. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court decided all the Issues in favour of the husband.

8. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the learned Family Court dated 23.8.2018 is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the facts and law. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Family Court had failed to appreciate the issue of cruelty in its right perspective and also failed to consider the fact that the wife had given a birth of a male child on 1.1.2010 while she left the matrimonial home for delivery in June, 2009. As such, the respondent husband deemed to have condoned the alleged act constituting cruelty. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Family Court had failed to consider the evidence of AW-1 to AW-3 in