Short Note : It was an appeal against a judgment passed by the District Judge Sagar, whereby appellant's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. The appellant petitioner was married with the respondent at Ahmedabad (Gujarat) on 12-5-1969. The petitioner was a resident of Sagar (M.P.). After the marriage had solemnised the respondent had come to Sagar and had lived with the appellant. On 20-8-1971 the petitioner suddenly had become blind. Held : The reasons that have prevailed on the learned District Judge for refusing the relief of restitution of conjugal rights, are wholly erroneous. The ground that the petitioner Narhari has gone blind, should be a greater reason to give the relief of restitution of conjugal rights rather than to refuse it. It is for this reason that the petitioner requires the help and assistance of his wife. Merely because she is doing her education at Ahmedabad is no ground to refuse the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. These are all matters which are more in the nature of acts done by the respondent herself and so she cannot be permitted to take advantage out of them. Experience has shown that number of times petty quarrels which take place with the daughter-in-law in some of the families during the earlier years of the marriage do not always subsist and ultimately the parties are able to adjust and it has resulted in happy married life during the later parts. This Court is clearly of the opinion that the relief of restitution of conjugal rights should not be refused only because there have been petty, quarrels or that the wife feels that she cannot live happily with the petitioner in his family. Baburao Pandurang Barai v. Sushilabai Babulal Barai, 1963 JLJ 446, Alobbai Ramphal v. Ramphal Kunjlal, 1961 JLJ 1513, Gaya Pershad v. Mst. Bhagwati 1965 JLJ 1092 distinguished. Appeal allowed.