GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the order dated 2-7-1997 in O. P: No. 213 of 1996 passed by the Family Court, Secunderabad, dismissing the application filed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent-husband. ( 2 ) NARRATION of the factual aspects is as stated below. ( 3 ) ON 9-2-1992, the marriage between appellant and the respondent herein was performed at Mahboob Mansion, Tarnaka, secunderabad. It was a love marriage performed according to the Hindu customs and rites. The marriage was consummated, but no children were bom to them. Both the parties known each other prior to their marriage. The respondent-husband hails from Mudaliar community, and the appellant-wife is Naidu by caste. At the time of marriage, the appellant herein, who is an engineering graduate, was employed in Advanced Radio Mast Limited and the respondent herein is a Diploma holder in printing technology. ( 4 ) THE appellant-wife stated that they both fell in love in 1989 and she helped him in many ways in developing his business since she being a graduate in Engineering, whereas the respondent herein is a diploma holder in Printing Technology and he used to seek the help of the appellant in almost all the matters. It is also stated that after the marriage they went to Tirupathi and she walked up to seven hills along with her husband. The husband thereafter took her to New Delhi, Meerut and Mussori for honey moon. She denied that she was suffering from arthritis. She is a dynamic personality having excellent record in athletics. She stated that she never abused the family members of her husband; that she used to give prior information whenever she visited her mother s house and her friends house and that she used to visit the office of the respondent prior and after their marriage and helped him to develop the business. Except Thali nothing was presented to the appellant; that her mother gave Rs. 10,000. Except Thali nothing was presented to the appellant; that her mother gave Rs. 10,000. 00 to purchase gold ring and clothes; that she never removed her "thali", that her husband used to beat her unnecessarily; that she maintained good relations with in-laws even after shifting to west Maredpally; that she used to pay visits to her in-laws house; that she also invited her parents-in-law for "pooja" on Deepavali day; that on 14-9-1993 both the husband and wife went to a Hotel and had a dinner and that the husband being a businessman having achieved what all he can, now wanted to get rid of her for one reason or the other. She further stated that she having understood the nature of the respondent s works tried to adjust with him. It is also stated that having achieved everything, the respondent-husband wanted to get rid of the petitioner without any reason. ( 5 ) SHE also stated that the respondent-husband not reported to the house for two days and only on 14-12-1993, he came in the midnight and slept without even talking to her. Before that, she made a call to her in-laws house at Tarnaka and as there was no response, she rang Dr. Mani, who is the respondent s cousin s wife. The appellant threatened her that he is going to file a petition for divorce and he left the house without any reasonable cause. She filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent expressing her wish to join the respondent. ( 6 ) THE respondent-husband stated that the appellant-wife is suffering from acute form of rheumatic arthritis involving severe pain in joints and insisting the husband to shift her to her mother s place at warasiguda, and that she used to indulge in offensive and indecent language while addressing not only her husband, but also his parents. Further, the appellant-wife also used to visit her mother s rented house without the permission of the husband and used to come late in the night; that though the appellant was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000. Further, the appellant-wife also used to visit her mother s rented house without the permission of the husband and used to come late in the night; that though the appellant was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000. 00, she was hardly spending anything for the maintenance of the house; that the respondent further attributed recalcitrant and stubborn attitude of the wife and her aggressive and irresponsible conduct; that he addressed a letter to her brother seeking intervention; that there was no response to the said letter and having come to know about the letter written by the respondent-husband, the appellant became offensive and picked up quarrels at frequent intervals and she started saying that the petitioner is unfit to be her husband and she is not interested in staying with him as his wife and that the appellant-wife went to the extent of removing her "thali" from her neck and threw it out and she left the house on 12th December, 1993 around 7. 00 p. m. On 14th December, 1993, she returned to his house. But she did not ask the husband where he had gone and where he had his dinner. She did not prepare any dinner to the respondent. On 15th december, 1993 at about 3. 00 a. m. the appellant woke the respondent from sleep and questioned him as to where he had gone and where he spent two days. The appellant started abusing the respondent and his relations in filthy language. When the respondent refused to react, the appellant pushed him from the bed and started abusing that he does not react to her provocations and that he is more like an errand boy rather than her husband. The respondent-husband addressed a letter ex. A-1 to the wife on 15th December, 1993 indicating her behaviour and throwing "mangalsutra" on his face. The said letter was sent by registered post and also under certificate of posting to ensure its delivery on her residential address as well as at her mother s place at Mettuguda. Though the appellant received the said letter, she deliberately chose to remain silent for the reasons best known to her. It is further stated that his wife was nagging arid causing irritation and also interfering in his business. Though the appellant received the said letter, she deliberately chose to remain silent for the reasons best known to her. It is further stated that his wife was nagging arid causing irritation and also interfering in his business. The appellant s brother came from america and the respondent approached him to sort out the matter and in spite of it, the strained relation continued and the reconciliation efforts failed. ( 7 ) ON the above pleadings, the appellant- wife herself was examined as P. W. I and the respondent-husband examined as R. W. I. The learned Judge on considering the evidence available on record and also ex. A-1 in connected O. P. No. 211 of 1996 filed by the husband-respondent seeking judicial separation, dismissed the application filed by the appellant wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned judge mainly concentrated on Ex. A-1 letter addressed by the husband, and in the absence of any reply thereto by the appellant wife, found fault with her holding that she behaved in the manner indicated in ex. A-1 i. e. , the act of throwing "mangala sutram" at his face, and also the strained relationship between the parties. Through they set up a separate family, they were not happy and also the fact that the wife is continuously nagging and interfering with his business for which he filed an injunction suit and by relying upon the documentary evidence, the learned Judge observed that the relationship between the parties is strained and reached beyond repairs and it is not possible for them to live together and dismissed the petition. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that the entire approach of the court below is not correct since the appellant-wife was ready and willing to join the husband and at the earliest point of time, she moved the Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights. To counter blast, the respondent husband filed a petition seeking judicial separation to withdraw from the society of the wife without any reasonable excuse and thus avoided the marital obligations. ( 9 ) WE have perused the judgment of the court below. The learned Judge did not advert to the legal requirements with regard to restitution of conjugal rights and mainly concentrated on the grounds enumerated for seeking judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage act. ( 9 ) WE have perused the judgment of the court below. The learned Judge did not advert to the legal requirements with regard to restitution of conjugal rights and mainly concentrated on the grounds enumerated for seeking judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage act. The findings rendered by the learned judge in the said O. P. , were replica of this judgment and without application of mind, the learned Judge erroneously dismissed the petition. We find that there is no mental cruelty nor desertion on the part of the wife and the withdrawal of the husband from the marital company of the wife is without any reasonable cause and that the husband failed to establish mental cruelty or desertion on the part of the wife, and this petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed earlier to the petition seeking judicial separation by the husband, and the wife is interested to join the company of the husband and somehow or other the husband is avoiding the same on one pretext or the other and moved the Court seeking judicial separation to counter blast the petition filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. From the evidence available on record, the conduct of the respondent-husband clearly demonstrates that the husband withdrew from the society of the Wife without any reasonable cause or excuse. Thus we find bona fides in this petition. The trial Court committed error in dismissing the petition. ( 10 ) FOR the above reasons, the order under challenge is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Consequently, O. P. No. 213 of 1996 filed by the appellant-wife stands allowed. No costs.