Short Note : 1. The appellant-wife has preferred this appeal against the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed by the trial Court in favour of the husband. 2. The only question for consideration is whether the appellant had any reasonable cause or excuse for withdrawing from the society of the respondent. Held : The appellant's pleaded case is that the respondent and his parents were annoyed with her because she did not bring sufficient dowry from her parents although she is the only daughter and on that count she was ill-treated and beaten quite often. But Ramnihore (DW.1) who had settled the marriage claimed that there was no demand for dowry when the negotiations were finalised. The appellant's father Shital Singh (DW.6) stated that the respondent never complained to him that he has not been paid sufficient dowry. It is, therefore, very unlikely that subsequently the respondent and his parents started demanding more dowry when the proper time for it was when the marriage was settled. The appellant in her written statement alleged that during the first 8 days of her stay at her husband's house she was almost beaten daily as she had not brought sufficient dowry but in her evidence 8, DW.3 she only stated that her mother-in-law had threatened her that she would be made to beg on the street if she failed to bring more dowry from her parents. Her evidence falsifies the pleading regarding beatings during the first 8 days after the marriage. The appellant in her statement has stated that in the month of January 1972 when she was carrying four months she was beaten by the respondent with shoes and slaps, as a result there was miscarriage on the next day. Her husband refused to give any medical treatment to her and so she went to her parent's place and she was treated thereby Dr. Gangoli (DW.5). The appellant's statement has not been corroborated by any injury report. Dr. Gangoli though claiming himself to be a family physician and knowing the appellant since her childhood, he did not state that the appellant made any complaint to him about the beatings. It was expected that if there was such a severe beating resulting in abortion, the appellant would not have failed to bring this fact to the notice of the Doctor. Dr. It was expected that if there was such a severe beating resulting in abortion, the appellant would not have failed to bring this fact to the notice of the Doctor. Dr. Gangoli has only tried to prove that he had treated the appellant for the abortion and he has also claimed that once when she came to him he found injury on her person but he was unable to state about the nature of the injury. He admitted that he maintains no record and in spite of that he issued 2 certificates after about 4 years i.e. in 1975, which have rightly been not taken on record as being filed at a very late stage. Moreover, the certificates would have only shown that some treatment was given to the appellant for abortion. The Doctor has not mentioned that the abortion took place because of physical violence and the abortion may have taken place in the natural course. The appellant has been falsified by her father Sital Singh (DW.6) who admitted that he did not find any injury on the body of the appellant in January 1972. Appeal dismissed.