A false charge of adultery by the husband against the wife amounts to cruelty, which gives the wife a reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of the husband.

H.R.Khanna, J.

1. This is an appeal by Madan Mohan against the judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against Shrimati Sarla Kohli respondent.

2. The parties were married, according to Hindu rites, on 1st February 1960 at Delhi. The appellant is a Matriculate and is employed as a clerk in a Bank, while the respondent is a Graduate and is employed as a coin-note examiner in the Reserve Bank of India. New Delhi. After the marriage the parties lived together for about 4 or 5 months whereafter the respondent started living at the house of her parents. In November 1960 the respondent gave birth to a daughter, who is now living with the respondent In July 1961 attempts were made for reconciliation and the parties lived together for about ten days Since then the respondent is living separate from the appellant. A petition was filed on 12th June 1962 by the respondent, against the appellant under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Judicial separation but the same was dismissed in default on 5th March 1963 when none of the parties appeared in Court. The present petition for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the appellant on 26th December 1963, According to the appellant, the conduct of the respondent after the marriage has been objectionable. A few days after the marriage the respondent wanted the appellant to live separately from the rest of his family but he declined to do so and this caused annoyance to the respondent. The respondent also was arrogant and considered herself superior to the appellant because of her higher education and income. It is alleged that the respondent slipped away from the house of the appellant a few months after the marriage with the intention to withdraw herself from the society of the appellant. Attempts were made at reconciliation and to bring the respondent to the house of the appellant, but as those attempts yielded no substantial result the appellant field the present petition for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. The respondent to her reply denied the allegations of the appellant that she asked him to live separately from other family members or that she considered herself superior or assumed arrogant attitude. According to the respondent she was kept as a prisoner in the appellants house and was not treated well on the ground that she had not brought efficient dowry. The appellant and his parents were further stated to have subjected the respondent to cruelty so as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it was harmful or injurious for her to live with the appellant. It was added that an attempt had also been made to kill the respondent by administering poison to her in her food. The respondent claimed that the circumstances, under which she was made to live in the appellants house, left her with no alternative font to leave the house of the appellant. The appellant was further stated to have charged the respondent with adultery with Malak Ram, who was the husband of the sister of the respondent and was the maternal uncle of the appellant. This allegation, according to the respondent, was false and amounted to cruelty. In replication the appellant reiterated the allegations made by him in the original petition and also averred that the charge of adultery against the respondent and Malak Ram had rightly made.

4. Following issues were framed in the case:

1. Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable excuse.

2. Relief.

The trial Court held that the allegation of the respondent that she had been given beating by the appellant and had been subjected to acts of violence, had not been substantiated. Likewise, the allegation of the respondent that she was maltreated for not bringing suffici