Judgment : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant herein, who is the husband of the respondent against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, dated 27-02-2002 in O.P.No.522 of 1999. The said O.P., was filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The said O.P., was allowed directing the respondent herein to issue notice to the appellant to take her to his conjugal fold and lead marital life, within six months from the date of the order and on receipt of such notice, the appellant shall take the respondent to his matrimonial house and lead happy marital life with the respondent and also pay costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 13-05-1973 at the residence of the respondent at Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam as per Hindu rites and customs and the same was consummated immediately and thereafter, she joined the respondent to lead marital life and they lived together for about six years happily. The respondent is a permanent employee of MES, Visakhapatnam and working as a Valveman and he is having a pucca house bearing door No.57-11-5 at Subashnagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, the respondent developed dislike against the petitioner and addicted to bad vices like drinking, gambling and womanizing etc. It is stated that the respondent has a kept mistress by name Satyavathi and had been living with her at Marripalem and discarded the petitioner even though she is residing with the parents of the respondent and there is no change in the attitude of the respondent to lead normal life and therefore, the petitioner left the house of the respondent and residing at her parents house. The petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 12-6-1979, for which no reply was given by the respondent and in view of the constant and continuous mental and physical harassment, she filed M.C.No.41 of 1979 on the file of the V-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Visakhapatnam, in which it was ordered for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.150/-per month. While so, the respondent married another woman by name Paradesamma and therefore, she filed C.C.No.777 of 1993 for bigamy on the file of the III-Metropoliton Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, in which, the respondent was acquitted by order dated 17-2-1995. The said Paradesamma filed M.C.No.297 of 1995, but the same was dismissed on 10-6-1996. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for enhancement of maintenance amount, which was enhanced to Rs.200/-per month, but the said maintenance amount was not at all paid by the respondent though he is getting monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-per month apart from having moveable properties worth of Rs.1,00,000/-besides immoveable properties worth of Rs.2,00,000/-. Meanwhile, the petitioner with the help of the caste elders negotiated to join the respondent and lead marital life, but the respondent rejected the efforts and on the other hand, the respondent filed O.P.No.4 of 1995 seeking divorce and the said O.P., was dismissed on 18-11-1996 by the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. After dismissal of the said O.P., the petitioner made attempts to join the respondent, but there was no avail. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed O.P.No.13 of 1995 for grant of maintenance and ultimately, maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.500/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner repeatedly requested the respondent to take her to his family, but the respondent willfully and wantonly neglected and rejected requests of the petitioner and therefore, she filed the said petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights. 1. 3. A counter has been filed by the respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and stated that in fact, the petitioner disliked the respondent from the beginning of the marriage and she used to pick up quarrels unnecessarily and used to leave to her parents house while he was on duty without informing even to the parents of the respondent who have been residing in a separate house near the house of the respondent. The respondent himself used to go to the petitioner's house and bring her back to live with him. The respondent himself used to go to the petitioner's house and bring her back to live with him. On the last occasion, the petitioner herself went away without any reason whatsoever in the month of April, 1979 duly locking the door and without handing over the key to the parents of the respondent and as usual, the respondent went to the house of the petitioner's parents and requested her to join him, but the petitioner herself refused to come along with the respondent and since then, the petitioner with sinister motive to extract money from the respondent, filed the maintenance case. It is stated that the respondent paid entire amount of maintenance pursuant to the proceedings in E.P.No.20 of 1998 and after exhausting all other remedies, the petitioner came up with the present petition without any bonafides. Had she interested to join the matrimonial society of the respondent, she would have filed the said petition long back. It is stated that the intention of the petitioner in filing the present petition is only to grab the retirement benefits and death benefits of the respondent, but nothing else. It is stated that she never made any efforts to join the respondent at any point of time. It is further stated that the respondent is suffering from heart disease and blood pressure and incurred several debts to get proper treatment and by reason of indifferent attitude of the petitioner alone, the respondent suffered mental agony. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 2. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the O.P., filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights was not at all substantiated by any tenable evidence and the criminal complaint filed by the wife against her husband for the offence of bigamy was ended in acquittal and the wife herself disliking the husband since the date of marriage and used to pick up quarrels without any reason and in fact, the wife herself deserted her husband without any reason and the trial Judge erroneously disbelieved the evidence of Rws.2, 3 and 4 and erred in coming to the conclusion that the wife did not desert the husband. The allegations that the husband contracted several marriages are without any basis and therefore, the trial Judge ought not to have allowed the petition. 5. The allegations that the husband contracted several marriages are without any basis and therefore, the trial Judge ought not to have allowed the petition. 5. We have heard the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant who is the respondent in the O.P. The point that arises for consideration as to whether the wife withdrawn from the society of the husband or the husband withdrawn from the society of the wife and the said withdrawal was without any reasonable excuse and whether there was any legal ground for the refusal to grant a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 3. 6. It is the case of the husband that the wife herself left the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse. Whereas it is the case of the wife that as there was a reasonable excuse to leave the company of the husband as he addicted to bad vices, she left the company of the husband and thereafter, she made several attempts to join the society of the husband, but he rejected all the attempts and requests of the wife. Wife is not entitled for restitution of conjugal rights if she left the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse. If there is a reasonable excuse for leaving the society of the husband and if there are no legal grounds to deny the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, then she is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. 7. In the instant case, the wife examined herself as Pw.1 and she stated that out of the wedlock, they have no children and therefore, both of them adopted a boy aged 8 years and both of them are living separately from the last 25 years and their marriage took place about 35 years back. The respondent insisted her to bring more money from her parents and for that reason, he used to quarrel with her. The husband driven out the wife from the house and she is granted Rs.500/-per month towards maintenance in O.P.No.25 of 1996. The suggestions that she has no relationship with her husband during the last 30 years and that her husband has not adopted any boy after the marriage and that the request of the wife to join the company of the husband was never refused and that the petition was filed to take revenge against the husband were all denied. 5. The suggestions that she has no relationship with her husband during the last 30 years and that her husband has not adopted any boy after the marriage and that the request of the wife to join the company of the husband was never refused and that the petition was filed to take revenge against the husband were all denied. 5. 8. Pw.2 the landlord of the house in which the wife is residing stated that the husband used to come to the house of the wife now and then after the marriage and their marriage took place in 1976 and he saw both of them living in the house in the year 1978 and the wife adopted her sister's son in the year 1977 who is living with her, but presently, the adopted boy is not living with the wife and the wife is living on rent in the house of Pw.2. In the cross examination, he stated that he has not attended the marriage, but stated that she adopted her sister's son in the year 1977. 6. 9. Pw.3 who knows both the husband and wife stated that the marriage of the parties took place 30 years back and both of them lived together and they have no children and the petitioner adopted a boy. Since then disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent and parents of the respondent brought the petitioner to her parents house and dropped her there. Thus, it is stated that the respondent alone deserted the petitioner and married another woman and living with her. In the cross examination, he stated that the petitioner took a boy in adoption. Pw.4 stated that the husband married three women and the petitioner adopted a boy. 7. 10. The respondent examined himself as Rw.1 and stated that he is working as Valveman and his marriage with the petitioner took place in 1973 and they lived together for two years and later, the petitioner left his company against his will and therefore, he and his parents requested the petitioner to come and live with him, for which she refused. On the other hand, she filed M.C.No.41 of 1979 claiming maintenance, in which, the Court granted maintenance of Rs.150/-per month and later she filed O.S.No.25 of 1996, and he is paying maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. On the other hand, she filed M.C.No.41 of 1979 claiming maintenance, in which, the Court granted maintenance of Rs.150/-per month and later she filed O.S.No.25 of 1996, and he is paying maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. He specifically stated that he is not willing to live with his wife, but he is ready to pay the maintenance to the petitioner. The suggestion that because of the harassment only, the wife left the society of the husband and the subsequent requests made by the wife to take her to the society of the husband and that the husband refused to take her to his company were denied. It is accepted that one Paradesamma filed M.C.No.297 of 1995 for maintenance, but the same was dismissed. He also admitted that the petition filed by him for divorce was also dismissed. Rws.2 and 3 are the colleagues of the respondent stated that the wife alone left the company of the husband, but they do not know the reason why she left the company of the husband. .11. Except the oral deposition of the husband that his wife left his company without any reasonable excuse, there is no other oral evidence or any material whatsoever as Rws.2 and 3 stated that they do not know the reason why the wife left the society of the husband. On the other hand, the wife stated that as the respondent was harassing her for more money and addicted to bad vices, she left the company. Subsequently she made several attempts to join him, but he rejected the attempts made by the wife. Unless there is a legal ground, the request to grant a decree of restitution of conjugal rights cannot be rejected. In the instant case, it is not the case of the husband before the trial Court that he is ready and willing to join the society of the wife. .The fact that the maintenance case filed by the wife was allowed directing the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month and the fact that the petition filed by the husband for grant of divorce was dismissed goes to show that even if she had left the society of the husband it was not without any reasonable excuse. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the trial Court rightly allowed the application filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. .12. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghose V.Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 511), which arises out of the divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The ground for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act are different and distinct from that of the grant of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The contention that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse and that there is legal ground to deny the application for grant of restitution of conjugal rights can not be countenanced for the reasons that the grounds for grant of decree of divorce and the grounds for grant of restitution of conjugal rights are different and distinct. It is contended that in view of the long standing separation of the husband and wife, which leads to mental cruelty to the husband but not to the wife is of no avail as it cannot be said that the alleged mental cruelty by reason of any illegal act on the part of the wife is established. The counter allegation made by the husband that the wife .herself left the society of the husband without any reasonable excuse was not at all established and therefore it cannot be said that the wife is not entitled for any restitution of conjugal rights. 2. 13. Restitution of conjugal rights can be refused only on the ground that the spouse has left the company without any reasonable excuse and that there are legal grounds to refuse for the restitution of conjugal rights. In the instant case, it is the case of the wife that as the husband was demanding money and got addicted to bad vices and tortured her, she left the company, but thereafter, she made several attempts through the elders to join the company of the husband, but all her requests were rejected. In the instant case, it is the case of the wife that as the husband was demanding money and got addicted to bad vices and tortured her, she left the company, but thereafter, she made several attempts through the elders to join the company of the husband, but all her requests were rejected. In so far as the legal grounds are concerned, in the instant case, the maintenance case filed by the wife was allowed and if that be so, it cannot be said that the wife left the company of the husband without any reasonable cause. In fact, the divorce petition filed by the husband was dismissed and therefore, it cannot be said that the grounds mentioned for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act have been established and so also it cannot be said that there is any legal ground to refuse the restitution of conjugal rights. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any merits in the appeal and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.