JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. appeal has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Ruchi Rani against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 302/2006 whereby, the application filed by the respondent husband under Section of the Hindu Marriage Act was accepted and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed against the appellant wife and she was directed to live together with the respondent husband and perform her matrimonial obligations. 2. Facts in brief are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 22.4.2004 at Goluwala, District Hanumangarh. A female child was born from the wedlock on 4.3.2005. The appellant wife was employed as a teacher from before the marriage. It is alleged that she left the respondent husband's Village Tibbi and went to her father's Village Goluwala after six months of the marriage. As per the Respondent husband's case, he made numerous efforts of appeasement and conciliation so that the appellant wife may come back and live with him and perform her matrimonial obligations but she refused. A Pnnchayat was also convened in the month of October 2005 wherein, relatives of both the sides were called but the proceedings proved inconclusive. In January 2006, another Panchayat was held at the house of one Chananmal Garg but the same also proved inconclusive because the wife refused to go and live with the husband. Repeated efforts were attempted for resolving the dispute between the parties but without any success. 3. Having failed in all efforts of social reconciliation to bring back his wife, the respondent husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the learned Court below seeking a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. It was pleaded in the application that 15 days prior to the filing of the application, the respondent husband went to Goluwala for fetching the appellant wife with him and requested that she should come back and perform her matrimonial obligations but she refused pointblank. It was also pleaded that just 10 days after the marriage, the respondent husband had to separate from his parents because of the pressure of the appellant wife. 4. Upon receiving the notice of the application, the appellant wife appeared and filed a reply. It was pleaded in the reply that she was employed as a teacher in a Government School. 4. Upon receiving the notice of the application, the appellant wife appeared and filed a reply. It was pleaded in the reply that she was employed as a teacher in a Government School. She denied the allegation that she forced the respondent husband to live separately from his parents and refused to perform her matrimonial obligations and to cohabit with him. As per the reply, a Panchayat was convened at the Dharamshala but the same proved unsuccessful because the respondent husband and his relatives demanded money from the appellant wife and her relatives and when the demand was not met, they refused to take the appellant back to the matrimonial home. It was also alleged that the respondent husband and his family members pressurised and physically maltreated the appellant wife in relation to demand of money. She was assaulted and started feeling fear for her life. She registered a criminal case at Police Station Goluwala during investigation whereof, some Stridhan was recovered but the remaining was misappropriated by the respondent husband and his family members. The respondent husband and his family members turned the appellant wife out of the house due to greed of dowry. She was living with her father and was making her ends meet with difficulty. The appellant wife and her father convened numerous Panchayats and respondent husband was requested to take the appellant wife back to the matrimonial home. In one of the Panchayats, the respondent husband and his family members apologised for the maltreatment meted out to the wife and promised not to make any further demands from her. It was specifically pleaded that the allegation of the denial of cohabitation was apparently false because the wife bore a girl child from the husband's loins. It was also submitted that the respondent husband did not make any effort to take care of the child and did not pay a single penny towards her maintenance. It was also submitted that the prayer made in the application for restitution of conjugal rights was not genuine and as a matter of fact, the respondent husband was preparing to remarry. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) As to whether the applicant husband was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights on the basis of the averments made in the application? (2) Relief? 6. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) As to whether the applicant husband was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights on the basis of the averments made in the application? (2) Relief? 6. The respondent husband examined himself, and witnesses Ramesh Kumar and Pradeep Kumar in support of his case. The appellant wife examined herself, Suresh Kumar and Pawan Kumar in counter. 7. The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence led before it, held that the appellant wife deserted the respondent husband without any reasonable cause. The evidence of the respondent husband was held trustworthy and acceptable. The evidence led by the appellant wife was discarded and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the respondent husband and against the appellant wife. Hence, this appeal. 8. Shri Vijay Jain learned Counsel appearing for the appellant wife vehemently contended that the ground of desertion taken by tire respondent husband in the application for restitution of conjugal rights is totally false, concocted and fictitious. It was submitted that the respondent husband was guilty maltreating the wife on count of demand of dowry and that is why, she was forced to live separately. He further submitted that due to the physical and mental maltreatment meted out by the respondent husband to the appellant wife, she started fearing for her life and was left with no option but to leave the husband's house and live at her father's village for ensuring the safety of herself and her lighter. He thus urged that the Trial Court was not justified in passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. He strenuously contended that the appeal be accepted and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court be reversed. 9. Per contra, Shri R.K. Singhal learned Counsel appearing for the respondent husband submitted that the testimony of the respondent husband remained uncontroverted and unchallenged as no cross-examination whatsoever was inducted from him. He also urged that the appellant wife in her cross-examination admitted that she was prepared to go to the husband's home and live nth him. In this view of the matter, as per learned Counsel for the respondent husband, there was no justification for the wife to even have challenged the judgment passed by the Trial Court. He also urged that the appellant wife in her cross-examination admitted that she was prepared to go to the husband's home and live nth him. In this view of the matter, as per learned Counsel for the respondent husband, there was no justification for the wife to even have challenged the judgment passed by the Trial Court. He, therefore, urged that the appeal is without any merit and should be rejected. 10. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned judgment and decree as well as the record. 11. He, therefore, urged that the appeal is without any merit and should be rejected. 10. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned judgment and decree as well as the record. 11. The evidence affidavit filed by the respondent husband AW-1 is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:- " 3- eSa 'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwWa fd 'kknh ds ckn fedj o fedj dh iRuh v;kph N% ekg rd lkFk jgs ,oa vkil esa lgokl djrs jgs ysfdu 'kknh ds N% ekg rd lkFk jgs ,oa vkil esa lgokl djrs jgs ysfdu 'kknh ds N% ekg ckn v;kph vius ekrk firk ds ncko esa vk xbZ o fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s v;kph xkao fVCch ls xzke xksywokyk pyh xbZA fedj vius ekrk firk ls 'kknh ds 10 fnol ckn gh vyx gks x;k D;ksafd v;kph us vkrs gh fedj ij ;g ncko fn;k fd og vius ekrk firk ls vyx gks tkosA v;kph ds ncko dks fedj us Lohdkj dj fy;kA v;kph ds lkl llqj o vU; fj'rsnkjksa us v;kph dks le>k;k fd og fedj ds lkFk jgdj lgokl dj pwWafd v;kph vius ekrk firk ds uktk;t ncko esa Fkh blfy, mlus xzke fVCch esa fedj ds lkFk lgokl djus ls bUdkj dj fn;kA 4- eSa 'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwWa fd ekg vDVwcj lu~ 2005 esa nqxkZ efUnj /keZ'kkyk] guqekux<+ taD'ku esa iapk;r gqbZ] ftlesa fedj o v;kph ds ekrk firk o iznhidqekj iq= Jh izdk'kpanz vxzoky fuoklh guqekux<+ Vkmu o lrh'kdqekj xks;y fuoklh guqekux<+ taD'ku o v;kph ,oa mlds ekrk firk ,df=r gq,A iapk;r esa v;kph dks le>k;k x;k fd og fedj ds lkFk jgdj lgokl djs ,oa iapk;r }kjk Hkh v;kph ls fuosnu fd;k x;k fd og fedj ds lkFk jgdj lgokl djs ysfdu bl iapk;r esa dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha gks ldkA 5- eSa 'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwWa fd tuojh lu~ 2006 esa Jhxaxkuxj esa Jh pku.key xxZ dh nqdku ij iapk;r gqbZ] ftlesa fedj o fedj dk firk o xqjnhiflag dk yM+dk jkstUnzflag] lqjsUnzdqekj iq= Jh cukjlhnkl xxZ fuoklh Jhxaxkuxj o v;kph ,oa mldk firk ,oa ,d&nks vU; O;fDr mifLFkr gq, ,oa bl iapk;r esa iq:"kksRrenkl iq= Jh izdk'kpUnz vxzoky Hkh mifLFkr gqvk o v;kph dks le>k;k x;k fd nksuksa i{k cky cPpsnkj gks pqds gSa] lkFk jgdj lgokl djs ysfdu v;kph fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s fedj ds lkFk lgoklo djus dks rS;kj ugha gqbZA 6- eSa 'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwWa fd nksuksa i{kksa dh r'rh; iapk;r xksywokyk esa gqbZ] ftlesa fedj o mldk firk o v'kksddqekj iq= Jh fyNe.knkl ftUny fuoklh guqekux<+ Vkmu ,oa cyoarflag iq= Jh rkjkflag fuoklh fVCch ,oa v;kph o mldk firk o HkkbZ bDV~Bs gq,A ;g iapk;r ekg vxLr lu~ 2006 esa gqbZ ,oa iapk;r }kjk v;kph dks le>k;k x;k fd og fedj d lkFk jgdj lgokl djs rks iapk;r esa v;kph ds firk us Li"V dgk fd v;kph dks eSa mlds lkFk lgokl ugha djus nwWaxkA pwWafd v;kph dBksj LoHkko dh ftn~nh vkSjr gS ,oa mlds iapk;r esa viuk dksbZ vfUre fu.kZ; ugha fd;kA 7- eSa 'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwWa fd blls iwoZ Hkh dbZ ckj iapk;rs gq, ftlesa nksuksa i{kksa ds fj'rsnkjku bDV~Bs gq,A v;kph ds cPps ( dq0 uUgh ) dh fMyhojh eerk gkWfLiVy guqekux<+ taD'ku esa djokbZ xbZA ftldk leLr [kpkZ fedj us ogu fd;kA fedj v;kph dks vius lkFk j[kus ds fy, lnSo rRij ,oa rS;kj jgk gS oa vkt Hkh vius lkFk j[kus dks rRij ,oa rS;kj gS ysfdu v;kph vius ekrk firk ds uktk;t ncko esa vkdj fcuk fdlh ;qfDr ;qDr dkj.k ds fedj ds lkFk lgokl ugha dj jgh gS vkSj nkEiR; laca/kksa dh ikyuk ugha dj jgh gS tcfd fedj v;kph ds lkFk nkEiR; laca/kksa dh LFkkiuk djus dks rRij ,oa rS;kj gSA 8- eSa 'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwWa fd ;kfpdk izLrqr djus ls yxHkx 15 fnol iwoZ fedj v;kph dks ysus ds fy, xksywokyk x;k o fedj us v;kph ls fuosnu fd;k fd og fedj ds lkFk jgdj lgokl djs o nkEiR; laca/kksa dh ikyuk djs ysfdu v;kph fedj ds fuosnu dks ekuus ls drbZ bUdkj gks xbZA ;kfpdk izLrqr djus esa fedj ,oa v;kph dh vkil esa dksbZ nqfHkZ laf/k ugha gSA " 12. Similar facts were set out in the evidence affidavit of the other two witnesses AW-2 Ramesh Kumar and AW-3 Pradeep Kumar. 13. The most material circumstance available on record is that despite the witnesses appearing before the Court for cross-examination, the appellant wife and her Counsel refused to conduct any cross-examination from the witnesses i,e. AW-1 Aashu Kumar the husband and AW-2 Ramesh Kumar. Only AW-3 Pradeep Kumar was cross-examined. He specifically denied the suggestion that the appellant wife was harassed for dowry. The witness stated that no such facts came to light during the Panchayat proceedings where he was present. He specifically denied the suggestion that respondent husband had turned appellant wife out of the matrimonial home after treating her with cruelty. 14. The appellant wife appeared in evidence as NAW-1. She submitted her affidavit by way of examination in chief. In cross-examination, she admitted that averment made in the affidavit regarding the respondent husband and his ts pressurising her in relation to the demand of Rs. 2 lacs was missing from reply filed on her behalf to the application under Section 9 of the Act. Other significant developments made in the affidavit as compared to the averments of reply were also elicited from her during the cross-examination. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the appellant wife shows that the affidavit was mechanically prepared. 15. In Para No. 6 of the affidavit, she admitted that she was ready to live the respondent husband and perform her conjugal duties but the respondent and and his parents refused to take her back in matrimony. The most significant allegation in the affidavit was that the respondent husband and his parents were pressurising her for bringing money. Suffice it to say that no copies of any criminal case filed against the respondent husband were exhibited on record by the appellant wife. A photostat copy of the F.I.R. was filed alongwith a forwarding letter dated 20.12.2006 but was not exhibited and thus, same could be read in evidence. 16. The application under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the respondent band on 9.11.2006. It is only after coming to know of the application for restitution of conjugal rights, that the F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant. 16. The application under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the respondent band on 9.11.2006. It is only after coming to know of the application for restitution of conjugal rights, that the F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant. By a bare perusal of the appellant's evidence, it is manifest that as soon as the application for restitution of conjugal rights was filed and the appellant wife became aware of it, the criminal case was filed with the sole objective of frustrating the application filed by the husband. From the admitted facts as available on record, it is clear that the spouses were living separately since the year 2004. Numerous Panchayats were convened to resolve the dispute but proved unsuccessful. In this background, the wife's vindictive approach behind the registration of the F.I.R. after the proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights was initiated by the husband is writ large on the face of the record. 17. Be that as it may, from the facts discussed above, it is evident that in the affidavit and the testimony of the respondent husband, specific averments were made to the effect that the appellant wife refused to perform her matrimonial obligations and deserted the husband without any justification. No cross-examination was made from his regarding the facts mentioned in the affidavit. In her cross-examination, the appellant wife admitted that she was prepared to live with respondent husband but on the condition that she was not subjected to demand of dowry. The husband's testimony however remained unchallenged for lack of cross-examination. Suffice it to say that neither registration of the criminal case against the respondent husband for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. was proved by exhibiting any documents nor the allegation of cruel conduct was put to him in his cross-examination. 18. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant wife deserted the respondent husband without any justifiable cause and that the respondent husband and granting a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in his favour.The appeal thus being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected. Stay application is also rejected.Record be sent back forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******