Hari Shankar Prasad, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant-respondent No. 1 is directed against the judgment dated 16.6.2000 and decree dated 27.6.2000 passed in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 12 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro allowed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the appellant-respondent No. 1.

2. The case of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in brief is that Parichhit Pandey (c) Ashutosh Pandey (plaintiff) was married to Smt. Pushpa Kumari (appellant-respondent No. 1) according to Hindu rites and customs on 11.5.1995 at Bokaro Steel City at the residence of respondent No. 2. After solemnization of the marriage, the appellant-respondent No. 1 went to her matrimonial house at Gharmandha, Sindri, within the district of Purulia and within two to three days of her marriage, her father brought appellant respondent No. 1 to his residence and thereafter appellant-respondent No. 1 did not return to her matrimonial house. Plaintiff, thereafter, made several attempts to bring his wife back to his house and even took help of common relation, but of no avail as respondent No. 2 bluntly refused to send her daughter to the plaintiffs house. The last attempt was made on 12.3.1996 by the plaintiff to bring her back but this time also, his attempt failed and so finding no way out, he filed this matrimonial suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right.

3. Respondents appeared and filed written statement alleging inter alia therein that entire allegations are false, misconceived and concocted and those allegations have been denied. Respondent No. 2 denied that he brought his daughter to his house within three or four days after marriage and it is also denied that his daughter ever went to her matrimonial house, but alleged that plaintiff by suppressing material facts has filed this suit. The marriage between the two is admitted. It is further stated that marriage was negotiated one and the own nephew of the respondent No. 2 Mahesh Tiwary who is an Advocate was mediator in negotiation of the marriage. But parents of the plaintiff suppressed the material facts regarding character, status, nature and mental balance of the plaintiff. The fact is that after three days of marriage, it is plaintiff who brought his wife to the house of the respondent No. 2 and left her refusing to take her back unless demand of rupees live thousand and motorcycle is fulfilled. The respondent No. 2 took his daughter on three occasions, but each time respondent No. 1 was subjected to maltreatment, cruelty by her husband and her parents-in-law as well as her brother-in-law who used to torture her both mentally as well as physically on account ,of non- fulfillment of their demand of dowry articles. Plaintiff wrote several letters to the respondent No. 2 regarding fulfillment of dowry articles for better future of his daughter. The appellant- respondent No. 1 was subjected to both mental and physical torture and threats were also issued to her that she would be killed and thrown into well if demand is not fulfilled.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for their determination in the suit.

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and for the reliefs claimed?

2. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action for the suit?

3. Whether respondent No. 1 had withdrawn herself from the society of the plaintiff and if so, is there any reasonable cause for such withdrawal?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of restitution of his conjugal right against the respondent No. 1 and for any other reliefs?

5. Issue No. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 and 4 were also decided in favour of the plaintiff.

6. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that he was married with the appellant-respondent according to the Hindu rites and customs on 11.5.1995 and appellant-respondent after marriage we