The burden of proof is on the husband to prove that the wife has withdrawn from his society without any reasonable excuse, but the wife has to prove that she had a reasonable excuse for her withdrawal.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. The husband has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of his petition under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the Act) for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. It is not disputed that the appellant was married to the respondent 4-3/4 years prior to the institution of the proceedings at village Ahalbodla, Tehsil Fazilka, as per Hindu rites. After the marriage the appellant and the respondent lived in the matrimonial home for one year. The respondent gave birth to a daughter in this conjugal union. After one year the respondent left the matrimonial home and has not come back. It is also admitted that the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code), which is decided against the appellant.

3. The appellants case was that the respondent has withdrawn from his society without any reasonable cause three years prior to the institution of the proceedings (7.1.1989). According to him, there was absolutely no dispute between the parties for one year. After the death of his brother Madan Lal, he along with his relatives went to Hardwar in connection with the last rites of the deceased. During the absence the respondent left the matrimonial home. On coming back from Hardwar, he went to her parental home to bring her back, but she and her father refused on the ground that unless he separates from his father, she will not return to the matrimonial home. Thereupon his father separated him and gave him a portion of the house to live in with the respondent. Thereafter the respondent came and lived with him for one week only and left the matrimo- nial house taking away all valuables of the petitioner-appellant. Thereafter despite his persuasions and attempts of the panchayat, the respondent flatly refused to come back to the conjugal union.

4. The respondent in her reply averred that she was beaten by the appellant and was turned out of the matrimonial home to coerce her to bring more dowry. Her parents gave Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant, but still his greed for more dowry was not satiated. He demanded a scooter and a television to be given in dowry. She was turned out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter the appellant never made any attempt to bring her back. Conversely, he declared that he will perform a second marriage. She also alleged that these proceedings are initiated as a counter-blast to her application filed under Section 125 of the Code and to harass her.

5. The appellant filed rejoinder and denied the averments made by the respondent and reiterated the stand taken by him in the petition.

6. Two issues were raised and thereupon the parties adduced their evidence.

7. The Trial Court, while deciding issue No. 1, admitted that burden of proof of issue No. 1 was wrongly placed on the petitioner-appellant, though under Explanation to Section 9 of the Act, the respondent was to prove that her withdrawal from the society of the appellant was on the basis of reasonable excuse. The Trial Court scanned the parties evidence minutely and came to the conclusion that the petitioner-appellant has failed to prove the case set up by him in his petition. The Trial Court also held that this petition is filed with an intention to thwart the grant of any relief of maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 of the Code. It further held that the respondent apprehends threat to her life and limb and this is a reasonable excuse for her withdrawal from the society of the appellant.

8. Appellants Counsel, relying on Anna Saheb v. Tarabai, AIR 1970 M.P.36, Hardeep Singh Inder Singh v. Smt. Dalip Kaur, AIR 1970 Pb. and Haryana284 and Smt. Parveen Bala @ Veena v. Jagdish Rai, 1988 (1) P.L.R. 579, contended that the burden of proof of issue No. 1 should have been placed on the respondent because as per the petitioner-appellants contention the respondent has withdrawn from his society without any reasonable excuse. In view of the Explanation added to S