( 1 ) THIS appeal by the husband is directed against thh Judgment and decree dated 4th day of July 1981, made by the 2nd Additional Civil Judge, mysore in M. C. No. 19/79, on his file dismissing the petitioner's case for restitution of conjugal rights under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage act. ( 2 ) THE original petitioner and respondent were married according to Hindu rights on 12-6-1977. They lived together at Mysore for about six months after marriage, thereafter, the case of the petitioner is that on 9-12-1977, the respondent his wife left his house suddenly and went away to Bangalore stating that she would stay there with her parents for a week and return. Subsequently, she did not return to his house inspite of repeated requests according to the husband. He wrote letters to her requesting her to join him. She did ont respond to those letters. Then he issued a legal notice to her on 28-3-1979 (Ex. P2 ). Inspite of it, she did not return. Accordingly, he instituted the petition for restitution of conjugal rights, before the learned civil Judge, Mysore on 13-3-1978. The wife resisted the claim by filing statement of objections. According to her, she was married to the petitioner as stated by him according to the Hindu rights. She went to her parents house after sometime of marriage, as her husband and her mother-in-law started ill-treating her after she had returned form Gowri festival, for which celebration she bad been to her parent's house for about a week, as she did not bring any property from her parents. She was treated with cruelty. Her husband was beating her mercilessly and this atmosphere had created an apprehension in her mind that it was not safe for her to stay in that house. In para 4 of her statement, she has given several instances as to how she was treated mercilessly and crually by her husband and his mother, in paras 4 (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e ). ( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge raised the following points for his consideration in the petition : (1) Whether the respondent has without proper excuse withdrawn from the Society of her husband ? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of Restitution of conjugal rights ? ( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge raised the following points for his consideration in the petition : (1) Whether the respondent has without proper excuse withdrawn from the Society of her husband ? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to an order of Restitution of conjugal rights ? ( 4 ) DURING hearing, the husband examined himself as P. W. 1 and he examined his neighbour as P. W. 2 and his mother as P. W. 3 and closed his case. As against that respondent examined hereself as D. W. 1 and examined her sister and another witness. She also got marked Ezs d1 to D44. ( 5 ) LEARNED Civil Judge appreciating the evidence on record held that the respondent-wife did show sufficient cause for staying away from her husband and in that view he dismissed the petition of the husband. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree, the husband has come up with the above appeal before this Court. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant strennously urged before us that the learned civil Judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the wife showed sufficient cause for staying away from her husband, according to him, the evidence on record was not sufficient to show that either himself or his mother treated the respondent cruelly so as to justify her staying away from the marital bouse. Hence, the Counsel submitted that the appeal was entitled to succeed. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the appeal argued supporting the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. ( 9 ) THE sole point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is :"whether the Civil Judge was justified in holding that the wife showed proper excuse for staying away from her marital house withdrawing from the Society of her husband ?" ( 10 ) S. No. 9 of the Act speaks of restitution of conjugal rights. ( 9 ) THE sole point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is :"whether the Civil Judge was justified in holding that the wife showed proper excuse for staying away from her marital house withdrawing from the Society of her husband ?" ( 10 ) S. No. 9 of the Act speaks of restitution of conjugal rights. It states that when either the husband or the wife has without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the Society of the either, the aggrieved party may apply to the District Court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied with the truth of the statement made in the petition that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree the case for restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the Society. ( 11 ) THE question whether conduct falling short of cruelty or any other marital offence can justify one spouse in leaving the other has been much debated in England and judicial opinion on the question is not wholly uniform- (1949 (2 ). All england Report at Page 14, 1953 (1), dixon v. Dixon. All England Report at page 910 ). Recent view seems to be that the excuse or Cause must be sufficiently grave and weighty. It may be distinct from cruelty to the extent that it falls short of or is less than legal cruelty but nonetheless the respondent's excuse for with- drawl from the society of the petitioner must be grave and weighty. In Krishnamurthy v. Syamanthakaniani. 1976 (2), Kar. L. J. 361, a division Bench of this Court has ruled that the words reasonable excuse should be understood in their ordinary meaning ; it would be sufficient if the Court is safisfied that there was reasonable cause for the respondent to withdraw from fhe house of the petitioner. (1962 Mysore law Journal page 784 and 1965 (1) page 683 followed) ( 12 ) BEARING these principles of law in mind we would proceed to consider the evidence on record. In the present case the consideration is whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in holding that the wife had reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the company of her husband. In the present case the consideration is whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in holding that the wife had reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the company of her husband. The specific allegation made by the wife in her statement of objection is contained in para 5 of the statement of objection with reads :"one night at about 10 p. m. , the petitioner compelled the respondent to write a letter stating that she is committing suicide out of her own will and that nobody is responsible for her end. Thereafter, the petitioner who had brought some pills compelled her to swallow them. Being terribly afraid that her end was near, she requested the petitioner to allow her to go to bathroom and return. So saying she went away, being mortally afraid of her life, to her sister's house at Mysore in the dead of night alone. She narrated that all had happened that night and immediately this matter was informed to the parents of the respondent who were at Bangalore and her brother immediately came from bangalore and took her away. It is in these circumstances that she had to leave for husband's house. Since then she has been living in her parents house at Bangalore. " ( 13 ) THIS has to be appreciated in the proper context. She has complained earlier that eversince she returned from Gowri festival from her parents house; her mother in-law and her husband started ill-treating her because she did not bring any property to her husband. She has given several instances in para 4 of her written statement and also in her evidence that she was ill-treated which culminated in to her leaving the house on 9-12-77, as mentioned above in para 5 of the statement of objection. This averment made by her in the written statement is spoken to by her in her evidence. This has been corroborated in the evidence of her sister D. W. 3, her sister, is living in her husband's house in mysore. Her husband is one Narasimha Murthy, a professor and she has deposed as D. W. 3. that on the night of 9-12-77 at about 9-30 or 10 p. m. the respondent came to her house. Respondent stayed in her house that night. The next day, she was taken to Bangalore, by her father. Her husband is one Narasimha Murthy, a professor and she has deposed as D. W. 3. that on the night of 9-12-77 at about 9-30 or 10 p. m. the respondent came to her house. Respondent stayed in her house that night. The next day, she was taken to Bangalore, by her father. When she came to her house that night, she had come in a frightened mood. Her deposition in para 4 reads thus :"sometime few days thereafter she came to my house at about 9-30 P. M. , she told me that the petitioner forced her to take pills and to write a letter stating that none was responsible for her death. She also told me, that hot coffee was thrown on her and she was beaten. I noticed bubbles on her arm. She was very much upset. She told me that she ran to my house for fear that her life would be put an end to. At that time, my husband and D. W. 2 were also present. "this is corroborated in the evidence of D. W. 2 Dayananda Patel. He was a student studying for Phd. He was under the guidance of professor Naraslmha Murthy husband of d. W. 3, He has stated that he was present in the house of Narasimhamurthy at the time when the respondent entered the house in a frightened mood and she started complaining even to him that her husband forced to write a letter that she is committing suicide of her own free will and further forced her to take pills. ( 14 ) IT is true that this gentleman was studying under the guildance of Narasimha Murthy, husband of D. W. 3, but that cannot take away the credit-worthiness of his testimony. At the time when he was deposing before the Court, he was no longer a student under Professor naraslmha murthy and he was an independent person being in emplpyment. The learned Civil Judge has rightly believed the evidence of this witness and has believed the version that the petitioner-husband forced his wife to write a letter to her parents and thereafter forced her to take a pill. This conduct on the part of the husband would probablise the version of the wife spoken by her in her evidence and detailed in her written statement. This conduct on the part of the husband would probablise the version of the wife spoken by her in her evidence and detailed in her written statement. We have no reason to differ with the finding of the learned Civil Judge, in this behalf. ( 15 ) IT may also be pointed out in this context that the very conduct of the husband would further probablise the version of the wife. According to the husband, himself and his wife were living on cordial terms till she left his house suddenly on 9-12-1977. If that were really true, the petitioner husband could not issue a legal notice calling upon his wife to join him. Ho husband who was cordial with his wife would issue a legal notice to his wife to return to bis house from the parental house simply because she stayed in her parents house a little longer. That shows that there was no love lost between husband and wife and it lands assurance to the version of the wife that she was not being treated properly. It is further in the evidence of D. W. 3 that after Gayathri Devi was taken back to her parents house her sister and her sister's husband went to the house of the petitioner-husband to enquire about her behaviour. The petitioner-husband alleged that his wife was unchaste and that he had documentary evidence such as photographs to show that. When they demanded of him to produce the same he never produced the same. He stated that he was not able to live with her and lead marital life. According to her, he further declared that he could not take her back; so she returned. ( 16 ) IN the circumstances, therefore, it is obvious that wife had sufficient cause to withdraw from the company of her husband to stay away from the marital home. We have no reason to differ from the finding so given by the learned Civil Judge. ( 17 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .