Judgment : TARUN KUMAR GUPTA, J. The appellant/wife has preferred this appeal challenging the order of restitution of conjugal rights passed by learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Burdwan in Mat. Suit No.12/64 of 2000. Respondent/husband Susanta Banerjee filed said suit for restitution of conjugal rights against present appellant/wife Smt. Santana Banerjee. The husband alleged in said petition praying for restitution of conjugal rights that there was marriage between the parties on 29th of April, 1997 according to Hindu rites and customs & that a female child was born on 19th of June, 1998 from said wedlock. After birth of said child, wife expressed her desire to live separately with her husband leaving aside other family members of her husband. The respondent/husband had old father aged about 76 years who is suffering from blindness, mother aged about 64 years who is suffering from heart disease, a handicapped brother and that all of them were dependent on the respondent /husband. It was not possible for the respondent/husband to go away with his wife and child leaving his helpless parents and physically handicapped brother. The wife along with her child left her matrimonial home on 27th of January, 1989 without any reasonable excuse & started to live in her father’s place. In spite of best efforts from the side of the husband, wife refused to return to her matrimonial home. Accordingly, said suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed. Present appellant/wife contested said case by filing written objection. In the written objection she denied the allegations made against her. On the other hand, she alleged that soon after her marriage her husband and mother-in-law took away her ornaments and often put pressure upon her for bringing money from her father’s place. She was also physically and mentally harassed in various ways by the family members of the husband. She was forced to do all household works including nursing of her father-in-law. On account of said torture, the wife was compelled to leave her matrimonial home along with her child on 27th of January, 1999. She apprehends that if she can be brought to her matrimonial home along with her child there is every chance of further torture resulting either suicide or death. However, wife was not against the idea of returning to her matrimonial home if she was taken there with honour with a promise of no further torture. She apprehends that if she can be brought to her matrimonial home along with her child there is every chance of further torture resulting either suicide or death. However, wife was not against the idea of returning to her matrimonial home if she was taken there with honour with a promise of no further torture. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court framed five issues. (1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (2) Has the respondent withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner willfully? (3) Has the respondent treated with the petitioner with cruelty? (4) Is the petitioner entitled to get a decree as prayed for? (5) To what other relief or reliefs is / are the petitioner entitled? In said case husband Susanta Kumar Banerjee and one Somlal Murmu deposed as P.W.1 and P.W.2. O. P. wife Smt. Santana Banerjee deposed as O. P. W.1. Learned Trial Court on scrutiny of evidence on record came to the findings that stray incidents of quarrel and violence do not constitute legal cruelty and that wife failed to establish that there was justification for staying away from the company of her husband. Accordingly, learned Trial Court passed the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Sri Amit Prakash Lahiri, learned advocate for the appellant/wife, has submitted that appellant wife specifically stated in her written objection as well as her deposition that she was subjected to torture both mentally and physically by her husband and other inmates of her house and that learned Trial Court failed to examine wife’s evidence in correct perspective. According to him the evidence of O. P. W. wife clearly demonstrated under what compelling circumstances the wife had to leave her matrimonial home along with her minor daughter. The evidence of O. P./wife was sufficient to show that she has reasonable cause for withdrawal from the society of her husband. According to him the evidence of O. P. W. wife clearly demonstrated under what compelling circumstances the wife had to leave her matrimonial home along with her minor daughter. The evidence of O. P./wife was sufficient to show that she has reasonable cause for withdrawal from the society of her husband. In support of his contention he has referred case laws reported in AIR 1988 Calcutta page 111(Kamal Kumar Basu v. Kalyani Basu) and (2003) 2 WBLR (Cal) page 514 (Smt. Rita De Chowdhuri vs. Sri Kalyan De Chowdhuri) Sri Biswajit Basu, learned advocate for the respondent/husband, on the other hand, has submitted that explanation appended to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has clearly laid down that the onus is upon the spouse who has withdrawn from the society of other spouse, to establish that there was reasonable excuse for the same. According to Mr. Basu there was no denial that mother-in-law was an old heart-patient lady and brother-in-law a physically handicapped person. According to him it was also admitted that father-in-law was an aged blind person and that a nurse was also employed for looking after him. According to him, the allegation of the appellant/wife that she was compelled to do all household works including nursing of old blind father-in-law was not correct in view of the evidence on record. Mr. Basu has further submitted that though appellant/wife has since lodged a false complaint of torture under Section 498A I. P. C. against respondent husband and other in-laws & respondent husband had to suffer imprisonment for one day on that score, still the husband is willing to take his wife and daughter back. In this connection, he has referred to the order sheets of this Court dated 7th of June, 2011 and 10th of June, 2011 to show that husband had been to his matrimonial home and stayed there for a night when an impression was given to this Court that if husband goes to his matrimonial home for bringing wife and child back then there would not be any hurdle for returning the wife along with her child to her matrimonial home. According to Mr. Basu in spite of showing said generosity on the part of husband there was no reconciliation in between the parties on account of apathy on the part of wife. According to Mr. Basu in spite of showing said generosity on the part of husband there was no reconciliation in between the parties on account of apathy on the part of wife. Sri Basu in this connection has referred to the evidence of wife (O. P. W.1) wherein she specifically expressed her willingness to return to her matrimonial home if her husband went to her father’s place to bring her back. According to Mr. Basu the wife has practically no cause of action to file this appeal and that the appeal is also liable to be dismissed on that score alone. In this connection he has referred the case of Naba Kumar Katari versus Kalyani Katari as reported in 2010 (1) CLJ page 549 and has submitted that where wife was willing to stay with her husband in her matrimonial home and husband is also willing to take her back and for that he had been to his matrimonial home then this appeal challenging the order of restitution of conjugal rights cannot stand. We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned advocates of both sides. We also perused the evidence on record. The following admitted position came out from the evidence on record as well as submissions of learned advocates of both sides. (1) On 29th April, 1997 the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. (2) One female child was born on 16th of September, 1998 in the aforesaid wedlock. (3) On 27th January, 1999 the appellant/wife left her matrimonial home along with her child. (4) On 5th April, 2000 the respondent/husband filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. (5) On 27th April, 2000 the appellant/wife initiated proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against husband and his family members. (6) The husband had to be detained in jail for one day on account of filing of said criminal case by wife. (7) Blind old father-in-law, aged heart-patient mother-in-law and one handicapped brother-in-law were staying in the matrimonial house of the appellant/wife along with her husband. (8) A nurse was engaged for looking after the old and blind father-in-law. (6) The husband had to be detained in jail for one day on account of filing of said criminal case by wife. (7) Blind old father-in-law, aged heart-patient mother-in-law and one handicapped brother-in-law were staying in the matrimonial house of the appellant/wife along with her husband. (8) A nurse was engaged for looking after the old and blind father-in-law. (9) Though appellant /wife made various allegations of mental as well as physical torture against the husband and other in-laws in her written objection as well as in her deposition, but she expressed her willingness to return to her matrimonial home if husband went to her father’s place to bring her and her child back. In the case laws referred by learned advocate for the appellant/wife it was observed that if wife being over sensitive, or being tortured mentally faced difficulties in residing in her matrimonial home along with other relations & wanted to reside separately with her husband then her demand cannot be said to be unjustified. But in the case in hand, the wife wanted to return to her matrimonial home and to stay with all her in-laws. As such the above referred case laws have no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. It appears that in spite of facing the humiliation of imprisonment for one day on account of filing of a criminal case by appellant /wife after receipt of notice of filing of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the husband is still willing to take back his wife and child. As per demand of the appellant/wife and also for highlighting the chance of reunion the husband went to his father-in-law’s house to bring his wife back. Though wife expressed her readiness to return to her matrimonial home if her husband went to her father’s place to bring her back, but even then the wife, for reasons best known to her, refused to return to her matrimonial home. The apprehension of wife of further torture on her return to her matrimonial home, resulting her death is found to be a myth as she herself deposed that she would return to her matrimonial home if husband went to her father’s place to bring her back. The apprehension of wife of further torture on her return to her matrimonial home, resulting her death is found to be a myth as she herself deposed that she would return to her matrimonial home if husband went to her father’s place to bring her back. Considering all these facts and circumstances as well as conduct of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that appellant /wife has failed to make out a case of reasonable cause for withdrawal from the society of respondent/husband. Accordingly, we are of opinion that the order impugned allowing the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights does not call for any interference from this end. As a result, the appeal fails. However, we pass no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment be supplied to learned Counsel / Counsels of the parties, if applied for.