JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. None has appeared for the Respondents. 2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21st December, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in case No. T.S. (R.C.R.)03 of 2006. 3. The Appellant had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. The averment made by the Appellant, in his petition, was that the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 were married for about 15 years and that they had three children, the youngest of them being 12 years of age. 5. According to the Appellant, the Respondent No. 1 was having illicit relations with the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were their neighbours and co-villagers. 6. The Appellant says in his petition that he objected to the said conduct of Respondent No. 1. It is alleged that on 14th June, 2000 Respondent No. 1 took their children with her and voluntarily left the house of the Appellant without his prior permission and consent. 7. The Appellant stated that on several occasions he tried to bring Respondent No. 1 back to the matrimonial home so that they could lead a conjugal life but she refused to come and stay in the matrimonial home. 8. In her written statement, Respondent No. 1 stated that the parties were married 24 years ago and they have three children, the youngest being 12 years of age. In spite of this, the Appellant insisted on having another issue, which was objected to by Respondent No. 1 on several grounds including their financial adversity. It was also submitted by Respondent No. 1 that the income of the Appellant was Rs.30,000 annually, which was about Rs.2,500 per month. It appeared to Respondent No. 1 that this income was insufficient to maintain a large family and that is why she did not want to have another child. 9. Respondent No. 1 denied that she had any illicit relations with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. According to Respondent No. 1, these two Respondents were his religious brothers though not her blood brothers. 10. On these broad pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following four issues. 9. Respondent No. 1 denied that she had any illicit relations with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. According to Respondent No. 1, these two Respondents were his religious brothers though not her blood brothers. 10. On these broad pleadings, the learned trial Judge framed the following four issues. A. Whether the Defendant No. 1 has withdrawn herself from the society of the Plaintiff without any valid reason/just cause being the married wife of the Plaintiff? B. Whether the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are standing on the way of the Defendant No. 1 for joining her in the matrimonial home with the Plaintiff and whether the Defendant No. 2 is maintaining any extra marital relationship with the Defendant No. 1? C. Is the Plaintiff entitled to decree for restitution of conjugal rights? D. What other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled in this suit? 11. The learned trial Judge considered all the four issues together and found, on the basis of the evidence on record, that the case put up by Respondent No. 1 was correct, inasmuch as the couple had three children and the income of the Appellant was apparently insufficient to maintain a large family. It was found that the Appellant insisted on having a fourth child but this was objected by Respondent No. 1. It was also found by the learned trial Judge, on the basis of the materials on record, that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were the religious relations of Respondent No. 1. In fact, in this regard, the son of the couple also entered the witness box and described Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as his maternal uncle as per religious relations. 12. The learned trial Judge found, and in our opinion quite rightly, that a serious allegation was made by the Appellant against the Respondent No. 1 inasmuch as he alleged that she was having illicit relations with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were her religious brothers. 13. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This section reads as follows: 9. Restitution of conjugal rights. 2 and 3, who were her religious brothers. 13. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This section reads as follows: 9. Restitution of conjugal rights. - When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. 14. A plain reading of the above section would show that if Respondent No. 1 has a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the Appellant, then the Appellant cannot insist on a restitution of his conjugal rights. In our opinion, on the basis of the materials on record and considering the nature of the allegations made by the Appellant against the Respondent No. 1, we have no doubt in our mind that she had a' reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the Appellant. 15. Interestingly, the allegations made by Respondent No. 1 against the Appellant are not denied by him. As far as the allegations made by the Appellant against Respondent No. 1 are concerned. It has come on record that the son of the couple had stated on bath that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were his maternal uncles. On this basis, we are of the firm opinion that given the nature of the allegation made by the Appellant, Respondent No. 1 had more than a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the Appellant. 16. From this, it must follow that no decree of restitution of conjugal rights can be granted to the Appellant. We, therefore, uphold the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. The Matrimonial Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.