The burden of proving reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the husband lies on the person who has withdrawn.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the wife Parveen Bala against the decree of conjugal rights passed against her by Sub Judge, First Class, Muktsar.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28.2.1979. Out of this wedlock, one male child was born on May 19, 1980 and a female child was born in August 1992. The parties lived together upto 13-11-1980 1 when the wife left the matrimonial home. The petition of husband for restoration of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on 4.5.1993. Earlier petition was proceeded ex-parte. Ultimately, this ex-parte decree was set aside on 22.7.1985.

3. In the petition it was alleged on behalf of the husband that his wife. Parveen Bala had parted company from him since 14.11.1981 without any reasonable cause and she did not come back despite being requested a number of times by him and by various Panchayats which were sent to Ludhiana and Moga where the fathers sister of the wife was married but to no avail. In the reply filed on behalf of the wife, it was pleaded that she was turned out of the house by her husband after giving beating and his behaviour with her from the beginning wag very cruel. She further stated that the husband and his parents were not satisfied with the articles of dowry and other gifts given at the time of her marriage. It was further pleaded that the husband and his parents were saying that she was not a match for the husband Jagdish Rai and he was to be remarried somewhere else. According to the wife her husband was a habitual drunkard and he used to beat her and her son Sonu without any reason under the influence of liquor. She was never given love and affection in her husbands family. According to her allegations in the written statement, during the period 28.2.1979 to November, 1981, her husband and his parents gave beatings to her a number of times but with the intervention of her relatives she was taken back by him she denied that anybody ever visited the house of her father. Rather, she alleged that her fat her took various Panchayats to the house of her husband but he and his parents refused to keep her and stated that the husband was to be married for the second time somewhere else. The plea was also taken that (his petition was a counter blast to the application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on 18.4.1984. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the sought of the petitioner with sufficient cause ? 0.P.R.

(2) Relief.

4. The learned trial court, after discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that it is the wife -who parted company from the husband without reasonable cause. Consequently, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the husband.

5. Efforts for reconciliation were made in this Court. At one stage on 11.11.1987, both the parties suggested two names each who were summoned in this Courts for reconciliation. However, on 1.12.1987, counsel for the appellant stated that the persons named by him are not prepared to appear in this Court. In the circumstances, the case was adjourned for arguments of merits.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant (wife) submitted that no Hindu wife would live separately from her husband unless there are grounds for living separately. According to the learned counsel this was for the husband to disclose as to why the wife was not prepared to live with him. The allegations made in the petition the she wanted her husband to live separately from his parents and settle at Ludhiana was not supported by any evidence on the record. The said allegations were false and, therefore, the finding of the trial court in this behalf are wrong, illegal and against the evidence on record. He also referred to the two letters written by the father of the wife Om Parkash to sho