Judgment S.Saghir Ahmad, J. 1. On 1-4-83 I passed the following order : "For the reasons to be recorded later, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the courts below are set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The parties shall bear their own costs." I now proceed to give my reasons. 2. This is defendant's second appeal. The suit was filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights against the present appellant and her parents. It was stated in the plaint that appellant was the wife of the respondent. She had been living with him and performing marital obligations. Out of this wedlock a daughter was born but she later died. It was stated in para-13 of the plaint that the defendant was pregnant. Her father, who was defendant no. 2 in the suit, had taken her away to his house in the year 1975 and since then she had been staying there and had not returned to the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was contested. It was set out by the appellant in her written statement that she had already filed an application against the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate tor maintenance and it was as a counter blast that the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted by the respondent against her. It was also stated that respondent wanted to satisfy his sexual desire by unnatural means which was refused by her. The plaintiff-respondent, therefore, used to beat her and ultimately one day he turned her out of his house. 3. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the respondent wanted to have unnatural sexual intercourse with the appellant and on her refusal, he beat her and turned her out of his house. THE suit was accordingly dismissed. 4. The findings recorded by the trial Court were reversed by the lower appellate court in appeal which was filed by the present respondent. THE lower appellate. Court decreed the suit. THE defendant has now come up in second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. THE suit was accordingly dismissed. 4. The findings recorded by the trial Court were reversed by the lower appellate court in appeal which was filed by the present respondent. THE lower appellate. Court decreed the suit. THE defendant has now come up in second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Sri S. P. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that a wife would be justified in refusing to live with her husband if she was forced against her will to submit herself to unnatural intercourse by her husband. The act would amount to mental and physical cruelty and, therefore, the wife would have a lawful cause in refusing to cohabit with The husband. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also contended that the learned District Judge was not justified in placing reliance upon a certified copy of the application filed by the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate for the grant of maintenance, as the said application had not been brought on record in accordance with law nor had it been exhibited by the trial court. He has also contended that in any case contents of this application were not put to the appellant when she was in the witnesses-box and for this reason also the tacts set out in that application could not be treated to be substantive evidence in the instant suit. 6. The merits of the contention may now be examined. A suit for restitution of conjugal rights can be filed by the husband where a wife without lawful cause refuses to cohabit with him. In a suit for this nature, therefore, the courts have to determine whether the wife has refused to cohabit with the husband on account of any lawful cause. 7. The tendency to have carnal intercourse against the order of nature is the manifestation of sexual perversion. It may seriously affect the compatibility of disposition which is the foundation of successful married life. THE unnatural act of sexual intercourse will certainly not result in complete and total satisfaction of the biological need of a woman and, therefore, the act may evoke feelings of hatred in her and may also generate repulsive attitude towards her husband. THE so-called sex act, instead of being a pleasure, may cause mental anguish and physical frustration. THE unnatural act of sexual intercourse will certainly not result in complete and total satisfaction of the biological need of a woman and, therefore, the act may evoke feelings of hatred in her and may also generate repulsive attitude towards her husband. THE so-called sex act, instead of being a pleasure, may cause mental anguish and physical frustration. " A wife would, therefore, be fully justified in a situation like this to refuse to cohabit with her husband and the husband would not be allowed the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights so as to afford him the opportunity of subjugating his wife to sexual perversion against her will. It is quite understandable that corroboration in such a case cannot be insisted upon and the court, if it is otherwise satisfied of the truthfulness of the statement of the wife in the light of all attending circumstances, can legitimately proceed to decide the case on her testimony alone. 8. In the instant case, the appellant, in her written statement, pleaded that her husband had attempted to have carnal intercourse against the order of nature with her and when she refused to submit herself to that act, the respondent beat her and ultimately turned her out of his house. The appellant herself appeared in the witness-box and stated these facts on oath. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned District Judge would indicate that the defendant-appellant was disbelieved on the ground that the story which was earlier given by her in her application for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate was at variance with what was stated by her in her written statement. It was noticed by the learned District Judge that in her application for maintenance she had pleaded that the plaintiff had unnatural sexual intercourse with her without her consent, and when he wanted to repeat it, she objected. But in her written statement filed in the Civil Suit she pleaded in para-13 thereof that the plaintiff wanted to have unnatural sexual intercourse with her to which she did not yield and, therefore, he began to beat her and ultimately turned her out of his house. 9. But in her written statement filed in the Civil Suit she pleaded in para-13 thereof that the plaintiff wanted to have unnatural sexual intercourse with her to which she did not yield and, therefore, he began to beat her and ultimately turned her out of his house. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the certified copy of the application of the appellant which was filed before the Judicial Magistrate for grant of maintenance was not brought on record in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and, as such, the application cannot be legally treated to be part of the record. 10. The record indicates that the suit was fixed for final hearing on 13-4-77. THE presiding officer was on leave on that date. File of the suit was consequently placed before the 1st Additional Munsif, who acted as the Incharge Presiding Officer of the Court concerned. He passed the following order on that date : "13-4-77. Case called out. Present parties counsel. Defendant filed one paper per list 16 C/1. Admit. The P. O. is on leave today. Order Fixed 9-5-77 for final hearing." It would thus appear that this document was filed before the trial court on the date of final hearing without any application as contemplated by sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides that no documentary evidence in possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1, shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non production thereof and the court receiving such evidence shall record reasons for so doing. Even the trial Court while admitting the document on record did not record its reasons for so doing. Moreover, the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned was on leave on that date and the necessary orders were passed by the Incharge Munsif, who, I must say, had no jurisdiction to admit the document, particularly when the filing of the document on the date in question was not an urgent matter requiring immediate attention of the Court. 11. Moreover, the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned was on leave on that date and the necessary orders were passed by the Incharge Munsif, who, I must say, had no jurisdiction to admit the document, particularly when the filing of the document on the date in question was not an urgent matter requiring immediate attention of the Court. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that since the document was filed by the appellant herself, it is not open to her to question the jurisdiction of the trial court in bringing on record the said document. This plea, atleast in this case, cannot be allowed to prevail. The document in question was filed in utter violation of the provisions of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It does not bear endorsement of admission or denial by the counsel for the defendant. It has not even been exhibited. Inspite of this the lower appellate Court has placed reliance upon it and has decided the case against the plaintiff-appellant. A document which is not filed before the Court in accordance with the rules of procedure and is brought on record in complete ignorance of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and does not bear necessary endorsement and is also not exhibited at the trial, cannot be relied upon by a court deciding the case in which it was filed. But for this infirmity I would have upheld the plea of the respondent that since the document was filed by the appellant herself, the latter should not be heard to contend that it was not properly brought on record and should not have been relied upon by the lower appellate Court. In any case, if the respondent himself wanted to rely upon that document, it was open to him to file a certified copy of that document at that stage in accordance with the provisions of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant then urged that notwithstanding the fact that the document was filed by the appellant herself, the contents of that document could not have been read in evidence unless they were first put to the appellant when she was in the witness-box. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant then urged that notwithstanding the fact that the document was filed by the appellant herself, the contents of that document could not have been read in evidence unless they were first put to the appellant when she was in the witness-box. He contended that the lower appellate court has relied upon this document to point out the contradictory stand taken by the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate and the Civil Courts and, therefore, it was all the more necessary to have put the document to the appellant to enable her to explain the so-called contradictions. This question need not be decided in this appeal, as I have already held above that the document itself was brought on record in contravention of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and could not have been read in evidence, particularly when it did not even bear the endorsement of admission or denial and more particularly when it was not at all exhibited at the trial. In view of what has been stated above, I allow the appeal, set. aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and remand the suit to the trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Appeal allowed.