The term 'reasonable excuse' under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requires a 'just cause' or a cause that is 'grave and weighty' or 'grave and convincing' for one spouse to withdraw from the society of the other.

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. This is an appeal by the wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act'), against the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, granted in favour of the respondent husband under Section 9 of the Act, by judgment dated 4.5.1989 of the Court of 4th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur.

2. The marriage between the parties took place on 28.5.1983 at Kamptee, district Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. They lived together at Kamptee between 28.5.1983 and 9.6.1983 and then shifted to Jabalpur on 10.6.1983 where the husband is employed as a tracer in the office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. The wife had, for a few days gone to her parents' house and lived there between 6.7.1983 to 30.9.1983. The wife again lived with the husband between 30.9.1983 to 23.10.1983. Thereafter she went along with her father to Kamptee and never returned to the husband's place at Jabalpur.

3. The case of the husband is that the wife left with her father on 24.10.1983 on the pretext that her mother was unwell, but thereafter she never returned inspite of repeated efforts and importunities of the husband to bring her back to the matrimonial home.

4. The husband having failed in all his attempts to persuade the wife to join him for discharging her marital obligations towards him, was compelled to file the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife opposed the petitioner on pleadings inter alia that soon after the marriage, the husband and the members of his family started ill-treating her for not bringing sufficient dowry in the shape of cash, articles and ornaments. The wlfs alleged that on 23.10.1983 when her father had come to take her to her parental house at Kamptee, the father of the husband scolded and humiliated the father of the wife. It was also alleged that the husband and his father were not prepared to send her back to her parents. The wife having suffered harassment and torture in the house of the husband came out of the kitchen and expressed willingness to go with her father whereupon it was alleged that the husband approached towards her furiously and physically pushed her out of the house. The wife thus resisted the proceedings of restitution of conjugal rights on the ground of ill-treatment to her and she having been insulted and humiliated by driving her out of the house, It was also alleged that no sincere efforts were made by the husband to bring her back to the matrimonial home.

5. The trial Court held against the wife that there existed no reasonable excuses for her to withdraw from the society of the husband and the husband was entitled to a decree prayed for by him.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the wife in this appeal first raised a question of want of jurisdiction with the trial Court to proceed with the case. It was argued that the jurisdiction of the trial Court was ousted due to constitution of Family Court for Jabalpur district vide notification dated 23.1.1989, issued under the provisions of Section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The learned Counsel submitted that after constitution of Family Courts the jurisdiction of the trial Court was barred under the provisions of the Act and the proceedings ought to have been transferred for disposal to the Family Court under Section 8 of that Act. This objection based on jurisdiction of the trial Court need not detain me any further in view of the clear pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shankar Kanojia v. Mayabai and Another (1990 M.P.L J. 435). It has been held in the above case that the establishment of Family Courts implies that the judges to preside over the Family Courts have been appointed and were effectively functioning. Mere issuance of notification establishing the Family Court would not amount establishment of a Family Court in the absence of appointment of Presiding Judge. The Division Bench, therefore, over-ruled the objection of want of jurisdicti