AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.8.2016 passed by the District Judge (Family Court), Pathankot, 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, the appellant-husband has approached this Court by way of instant appeal.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 10.8.2009 at Sujanpur, Tehsil and District Pathankot as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, both the parties lived together as husband and wife and out of the said wedlock, no child was born. After some time of the marriage, the respondent started behaving rudely with the appellant and his relatives. She used to pick quarrel and started to compel the appellant to live separately from his parents. When he refused to do so, the respondent in November, 2012 on the occasion of Tika ceremony, left the protection of her husband without his consent and since then she was living in her parental home. The appellant and his parents approached the respondent on various dates to reconcile the matter but she flatly refused to come back to the matrimonial home. Even the appellant offered her that they would live separately in the hired accommodation in the same village, but to no effect. The respondent being legally wedded wife of the appellant, it was obligatory upon her to come and join the company of the appellant but she did not join. In this way, the respondent had left the society of the appellant without any reasonable or sufficient cause. Accordingly, the appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a written statement. It was pleaded therein that the parties had taken mutual divorce from one another on 10.8.2013 on an affidavit in the presence of the witness. The name of the witness mentioned in the affidavit was duly attested by the Notary. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause? OPR

2. Relief.

3. In support of his case, the appellant besides tendering his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, appeared as PW1 and examined Savita Devi as PW2 who tendered her affidavit Ex.PW2/A. To rebut the evidence of the appellant, the respondent examined herself as RW1 and tendered her affidavit as Ex.RW-1/A and also examined her father Santokh Raj as RW2 who tendered his affidavit as Ex.RW2/A.

4. The trial court on appreciation of evidence led by the parties, decided issue No.1 against the appellant holding that the respondent was living separately from the appellant with sufficient cause and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to a decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2016 dismissed the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent had withdrawn herself from the company of the appellant without any reason and cause. It was further contended that the appellant made efforts directly and through panchayats to bring the respondent back to her matrimonial home but her parents refused to send her. According to the learned counsel, the trial court had misread the evidence led by the parties and wrongly dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. Section 9 of the Act provides for 'Restitution of Conjugal Rights'. It reads thus:-

“9. Restitution of conjugal rights.- When eith

Click Here to Read the rest of this document