The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of living together and the lack of reasonable excuse for withdrawing from marital relations under Sec 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

AJAY RASTOGI, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife u/Sec 19(1) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 against the judgment dt. 22.07.2016 granting decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights in favour of the respondent-husband on a petition filed by him u/Sec 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The indisputed facts in brief, which may be relevant for the present purpose and manifest on the record are that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 11.05.1995 according to the Hindu Rites and Customs and from this wedlock they were blessed with a male child on 13.02.1999, who at the time of filing the application, was 17 years old but unfortunately, after one and a half year of his birth it was diagnosed that he is suffering from thalasemia and is under continuous medical treatment and is presently in custody with the respondent-husband/father.

3. That apart from the medical treatment of his son he has an old aged ailing mother, who too is dependent upon him. At the same time, the wife is also suffering with medical ailment and as advised by the doctors the respondent-husband extended medical assistance to the appellant-wife and son but gradually it started deteriorating and because of ailing son blood transformation takes place at least three times in two months and is also very painful.

4. Respondent had certain complaints with the appellant-wife that she did not take care of their son and that started deteriorating health and mental conditions gradually of the respondent-husband and his son and without any sufficient justification one day the wife left her matrimonial home on 25.09.2009 although her parents assured that they will send her back to matrimonial home but the fact is that she never turned up and while residing at her parents’ home she filed a criminal case against him u/Sec 498-A IPC and also filed application for maintenance u/Sec 125 of Cr.P.C. But those cases are amicably settled but some bitterness arose in their marital relations. But the root cause was that the wife for good reasons is not interested to take care of their ailing son and his old mother and left her matrimonial home on 30.03.2015 and this could not be considered to be a reasonable excuse to withdraw her and refusal to share the matrimonial life.

5. In support of defence, the respondent-husband appeared as P.W.1 and the appellant-wife also appeared as D.W.1 and also one of her witness Narayan Chandra Saha as D.W.2. The respondent-husband in his deposition as P.W.1 deposed the facts in seriatim as being alleged in his application filed u/Sec 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. At the same time, the wife also deposed as D.W.1 and in examination-in-chief, she has narrated the same facts as stated in her written statement. In her cross-examination, she deposed that all the time she is eager to restore conjugal life and ready to restore her matrimonial house but having an apprehension that she may not be safe in the house of her husband.

6. But there is no tangible material placed on record by which even an iota of inference could be drawn that there was at all any ill-treatment on the part of her husband. At the same time, it came on record that she was taking care of their ailing son, his wife and there is no reason of excuse to withdraw from marital relations and to share the matrimonial life.

7. The learned Family Court granted Decree in favour of the respondent-husband for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under the impugned judgment dt.22.07.2016.

8. The main thrust of submission of counsel for the appellant is that although they have failed to maintain harmonies of matrimonial relations but as she has been threatened on number of occasions apprehending of enforcing dire consequences and that according to the appellant is a reason for which she has challenged the impugned judgment of the learned Family Court dt.22.07.2016 directing for Restitution of Conjugal Rights