JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated March 23, 1974, and it arises out of the following circumstances: 2. Mst. Ramethwari, appellant, was married with Kripa Shanker, respondent, in the year 1964. It appears that the couple lived in hermony for about two years and as a result of this wedlock a son was born to them. Thereafter the relations deteriorated and Mst. Rameshwari appellant, started living separate from her husband. Kripa Shanker, respondent, filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereirafrer called 'the Act'). Those proceedings were resisted by the appellant on the ground that the treatment meted out by her at the hands of her husband was cruel and that the appellant was apprehensive about her safety, if she would start living with her husband. The District Judge, Ganganagar, by his judgment dated September 30, 1969, decreed restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant. Even upto 1972 in spite of the execution taken out by the respondent, the appellant did not start living with her husband and, therefore, the respondent filed the petition under section, 13 (1A) (ii) of the Act for the grant of a decree of divorce on a plea that the appellant failed to comply with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of more than two years. This petition was again resisted by the appellant mainly on the ground that the respondent did not make overtures to the appellant to live with him and therefore, in the circumstances it was not possible for the appellant to go and live with her husband. According to the counsel for the appellant it was the duty of the respondent-husband to invite his wife to live with him even after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in his favour, but it was not done by him. The respondent, however, averred that in spite of the execution proceedings taken out by him the appellant refused to live with him and, therefore, he is entitled to get the decree of divorce against her. The learned District Judge, however passed the decree for divorce in favour of the respondent. 3. The respondent, however, averred that in spite of the execution proceedings taken out by him the appellant refused to live with him and, therefore, he is entitled to get the decree of divorce against her. The learned District Judge, however passed the decree for divorce in favour of the respondent. 3. An appeal was preferred by the lady-appellant to challenge the judgment of the District Judge on the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was the duty of the husband to invite the lady to live within his house even after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed and since the husband failed to comply with this duty the decree for divorce could not be passed this plea did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and he rejected the appeal. It is this way that this special appeal has come before the Division Bench. 4. In the stay matter the respondent filed along with his reply a certified copy of the order of the executing court dated February 2, 1970, Which reads as follows:- 2&2&1-70 odqyk, loZ Jh bUnzHkku o pUnwyky gkftjA odkyrukek o tckc en;wuk odhy us is'k fd, xSj lk;yk en;wuk dk tckc gS fd tc rd mls mlds thou dh Security dh iwjh rlLyh u gks ;g fMxjhnkj ds ikl jgdj viuk thou [krjk esa ugh Mky ldrhA blls tkfgj gksrk gS fd en;wuk xS[kk;yk lk;y &&&&fMxjhnkj ds lkFk jgdj restitution of conjugal rights dh fMxjh dks rkehy djuk ugh pkgrkA fygktk btjk; o lwjr ekStwnk vne rkehy fMxjh esa nk[ky nQrj gksA gqDe lquk;k x;kA Sd. Bhanu Parkash ftyk U;k;/kh'k Jh xaxk uxjA 5. A perusal of this order leaves no room for doubt that the husband was very keen to see that the marital relations between the husband and wife were restored. He took out the execution proceedings to procure the physical presence of his wife, but they remained in executed as she showed her unwillingness to live with her husband unless 'a security`, to her satisfaction was given by the decree-holder-respondent that he would not maltreat the lady. He took out the execution proceedings to procure the physical presence of his wife, but they remained in executed as she showed her unwillingness to live with her husband unless 'a security`, to her satisfaction was given by the decree-holder-respondent that he would not maltreat the lady. From the Stand taken by the appellant before the executing court, the executing court came to the conclusion and in our opinion rightly so that the appellant was not willing to live with her husband in whose favour a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed and, therefore, without further executing the decree, the proceedings for execution were dropped. 6. In view of this attempt made by the respondent it is now futile for the learned counsel for the appellant to argue that the respondent failed to discharge his obligation as husband to invite his wife to live with him. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and which has been elaborately discussed by the learned Single Judge, has apparently no bearing in the circumstances of this appeal. 7. We, therefore, do not find any life in this appeal and it is dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******