In a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, once the petitioner establishes the facts of the marriage and withdrawal, the burden shifts to the respondent to prove a reasonable cause for such withdrawal from the matrimonial home.

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.20219 passed in M.O.P.No. 75 of 2012 on the file of the Familiy Court at Pondicherry.

***

J U D G M E N T

(Order of the Court was made by K.RAJASEKAR, J.)

The petitioner in M.O.P.No. 75 of 2012 has come forward with this Appeal to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.02.20219 passed in M.O.P.No. 75 of 2012 on the file of the Familiy Court at Pondicherry.

2. The wife has filed M.O.P.No. 75 of 2012 to resume the marital life and lead the marital obligation with the husband.

3. In the petition, the wife has stated that the marriage between the couple took place on 14.07.2008 according to Hindu rites and customs in Vanur Taluk. At the time of the marriage, the wife's parents provided 15 sovereigns of gold and some household articles. The couple began their married life in Puducherry. The wife is a graduate in Economics, while the husband studied up to the 8th standard. This disparity became a source of misunderstanding and frequent quarrels ensued. It is further stated that after the marriage the petitioner was forcibly taken to Chennai by the respondent and made to work under his elder brother and was treated like a slave. Subsequently she returned to the matrimonial home where also she was subjected to cruelty. During her pregnancy she was not ill-treated by the husband. The respondent did not permit her parents to perform the 'baby showering' ceremony, hence she was taken back to her parental home. She gave birth to a female child on 13.03.2009 at Government General Hospital, Pondicherry and named as Thamizhini. The respondent had not visited or cared for the petitioner and the child inspite of repeated demands and panchayats. It is further stated that the respondent demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty. All her Sridhana properties including 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments are in the custody of the respondent. A complaint was also given before the SHO All Women Police Station, Kottakuppam. It is further stated that the petitioner is always ready and willing to resume marital life with the respondent. But the respondent has shown no interest and withdrawn from her society without reasonable cause. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

4. The respondent/husband contested the restitution of conjual rights and also filed separate petition to dissolve the marriage under Sections 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.O.P.No. 358 of 2011, on the ground of cruelty. He stated that the marriage between the couple took place on 14.07.2008 according to Hindu rites and customs in Vanur Taluk. At the time of the marriage, the wife's parents provided 12 sovereigns of gold and some household articles. The couple began their married life in Puducherry. The wife is a graduate in Economics, while the husband studied up to the 8th standard. This disparity became a source of misunderstanding, and she began to harass him. Frequent quarrels ensued, disrupting the husband's life. They had a daughter, Thamizhini, born on 13.10.2009. Subsequently, the husband returned to his native place in Vanur and worked on his father's land. Despite this, he continued to live with tolerance, hoping she would change her act. Although he acted responsibly as a dutiful husband, his wife harassed him and threatened suicide for trivial reasons. She also physically assaulted him and verbally abused him with filthy language. Furthermore, she repeatedly threw the Thali at his face. In March 2010, the wife left the matrimonial home and refused to continue the marriage. Therefore, he filed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the parties were called upon to adduce evidence. During the trial, the petitioner/wife in this Appeal was examined as PW1 and Mr.Selvaraj was examined as PW-2 and