Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.: - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant – husband against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Moga, whereby the petition filed by him under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, “the Act”) for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed.

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 4.12.1998 at Jagraon as per Sikh rites i.e. by Anand karaj ceremony. Neither dowry nor lunch was offered by parents of the respondent. Only five members accompanied the appellant in barat. Not even single penny was spent by the parents of the respondent nor any gold article was given by them. After the marriage, the appellant and the respondent lived together and cohabited as husband and wife but no issue was born. The respondent went to meet her parents on 5.3.2002 but did not come back inspite of efforts made by the appellant-husband. The appellant is serving in Border Security Force and is unable to keep the respondent at the place of his posting as per rules. The respondent was pressurizing him to resign from service and she was not ready to live in the house of the appellant with his parents. The appellant filed petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed reply controverting the averments made in the petition. The trial court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the petition vide order dated 28.7.2014 impugned herein. Hence the instant appeal.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

“1) Whether respondent had withdrawn from the society of petitioner for a just excuse? OPR.

2) Whether petitioner is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights? OPA.

3) Whether this petition is counter blast to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent? If so, its effect? OPA

4) Relief.”

It has been categorically recorded by the trial court that there is nothing on record to show any effort made by the appellant after the filing of the petition under Section 9 of the Act to rehabilitate the respondent in case he really intended to. The respondent had filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C on 2.8.2005 and immediately thereafter, the appellant filed petition under Section 9 of the Act in the month of November 2005 i.e. after a period of only three months. The respondent wife had always been ready to join the company of the appellant but the appellant did not take any step to rehabilitate her. It has been proved on record that the petition filed under section 9 of the Act by the appellant was a counter blast to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by the respondent wife. In view of the compelling circumstances proved on record, the respondent had to withdraw from the society of the appellant after being maltreated by him and his parents. After considering the entire evidence on record, the petition under Section 9 of the Act had been dismissed by the trial court. The relevant finding recorded by the trial court reads thus:-

“13. Respondent admittedly is the wife of the petitioner who is now residing separately from the petitioner at the house of her parents since June, 2002. Petitioner is serving in the Border Security Force (BSF) posted at Sriganganagar. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent is not ready to live at the house of petitioner and wants petitioner to take her along which he is unable to take because of the rules of BSF. Respondent has denied that she ever pressurized the petitioner to join his company only if he rehabilitated her at his place of posting. Petitioner has come forward filing the present petition in November 2005 i.e. after three years of the alleged s