Rajesh Shankar, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd September, 2011, decree signed on 14th October, 2011, passed by Sri Satish Chandra Singh, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in connection with Matrimonial Suit No. 121 of 2008, whereby the appellant-wife has been directed to restore conjugal life with the respondent-husband within thirty days from the date of the order, failing which the respondent-husband would be at liberty to restore the same through due process of law.

2. The background of the present appeal is that the respondent filed a matrimonial suit, being Matrimonial Suit No. 121 of 2008, in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights with the appellant.

The facts of the case are that both the parties are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 12th May, 2006 at Sonuwa Railway Station, District West Singhbhum, according to Hindu rights and customs. Both the parties have been living separately since 12th October, 2007. According to the Respondent-husband, his wife had been staying separately without any reasonable excuse, whereas stand of the Appellant- wife was that her husband used to torture her and wanted to kill her and as such she went back to her father's house to save her life from the husband. Further case of the appellant was that the respondent never attempted to bring her back and wanted to grab money from her father because she happens to be the sole daughter of her parents.

3. In support of his case, the respondent examined three witnesses viz. PW-1-Sanjay Kumar (respondent himself), PW-2-Tun Tun Singh and PW-3-Shiv Kumar Singh. On the other hand, the appellant examined two witnesses viz. RW-1-Aditya Kant Nayak and RW-2-Gopal Prajapati (father of the appellant). However, the appellant herself was not examined as witness.

4. Learned court below, while adjudicating the matrimonial suit filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, framed issues; the major one being "whether the respondent- wife (appellant herein) had withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner (respondent herein) without any reasonable excuse?"

5. PW-1-Sanjay Kumar, while supporting his case, had stated that his marriage with the appellant was solemnized according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 12th May, 2006, but she left the matrimonial home on 12th October, 2007 and went back to her Maike (parental home). He made sincere efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home, but she refused to come back.

PW-2-Tun Tun Singh, who was known to both the parties, also supported the case of the respondent and stated that since 12th October, 2007, the appellant has been living separately in her Maike and when she was requested by the respondent-husband to come back to the matrimonial home, she completely refused to come back. He also stated that the appellant stayed in her matrimonial home only for one year and five months. He, however, denied the fact that the respondent ever tortured the appellant.

PW-3-Shiv Kumar Singh, who was also known to both the parties, also supported the case of the respondent and stated that the appellant had been staying in her Maike since 12th October, 2007 and despite the efforts made by the respondent, she refused to come back to the matrimonial home. He also stated that the appellant had stayed in the matrimonial home only for a period of one year and five months. He further stated that the respondent works as a contract labour and denied the fact that the respondent ever tortured the appellant prior to leaving the matrimonial home.

On the other hand, RW-1-Aditya Kant Nayak though led his examination-in-chief through an affidavit, but was not cross examined by the respondent and the learned court below expunged his evidence. RW-2-Gopal Parjapati, who is father of the appellant, stated that the marriage between the appel