ORDER 1. This first appeal has been filed by the husband aggrieved of the judgment delivered by the Family Court, Ujjain, in Case No.211-A/2002 whereby, the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the suit filed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the appellant by holding that the appellant was not able to substantiate his case by holding cogent evidence to prove the causes for grant of relief under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was held that the reasons given were not sufficient and justifiable. 2. The appellant in this appeal is aggrieved of the impugned judgment has stated that despite giving all love and affection to the respondent wife after the marriage and making no demand of dowry at any point of time, the respondent left the matrimonial home without any cause and stayed in the parental house. She refused to join company of the appellant despite approach of in laws and insulted them. 3. It is submitted that in reply, the respondent wife leveled charges of demand of dowry and cruelty against her by the appellant without substantiating those allegations. Since the appellant always wanted to have company of the respondent, he then filed this petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. It has been submitted by the appellant that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent was living separately from the appellant without any sufficient cause. The Court also went wrong in holding that it was not the case for restoration of conjugal rights. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Nobody has come forward to oppose the appeal from the side of the respondent. 7. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties have framed:- oknfo"k; fu"d"kZ 1- D;k vukosfndk us vkosnd dks fcuk fdlh fl) ughA mfpr dkj.k ds ifjR;kx dj j[kk gS \ 2- lgk;rk ,oa O;; \ vfrae iSjk vuqlkj nkok fujLr fd;kA 8. While discussing evidence with respect to the issue No.1, the trial Court has observed that just after four months of the marriage, the respondent on the plea that she was having headache and after she was admitted in the hospital, left the hospital and straight away went to her parental house. While discussing evidence with respect to the issue No.1, the trial Court has observed that just after four months of the marriage, the respondent on the plea that she was having headache and after she was admitted in the hospital, left the hospital and straight away went to her parental house. When the appellant went to bring back the respondent in the year January 1998, the respondent refused to come rather her parents insulted the appellant. Father of the appellant has given an affidavit to support the case of the appellant. He has also stated that :- 6- mUgksaus nhik ls dHkh dksbZ ngst dh ek¡x ugha dh vkSj u gh mlds lkFk ekjihV dh gSA fn- 27- uoEcj dks mldh rch;r [kjkc gksus ls nhik dks vLirky esa HkrhZ fd;k x;k Fkk] mlds ckn ls og muds ?kj ij ugha vkbZA fnukad 2-12-97 dks og lhrkem pyh x;h FkhA lk{kh dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd tc fnukad 5-1-98 dks og vukosfndk dh rch;r iwNus x, vkSj mlds ,d ekg ckn og vkSj mldh iRuh nhik dks ysus x;s FksA rFkk mudk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd tc rd vukosfndk muds ?kj ij jgh Fkh] mUgksaus mlds lkFk dHkh cqjk O;ogkj ugha fd;k vkSj mls csVh dh rjg j[kk Fkk vkt Hkh mldks j[kus ds fy;s rS;kj gS mudk dguk gS fd og ftyk ;kstuk vf/kdkjh ds in ls fjVk;j gq;s gSaA 9. On the other hand, the respondent in her affidavit stated that:- 8- tcfd vukosfndk nhik lksuh dk 'kiFk ij dFku gS fd 'kknh ds ,d efgus ds ckn ls vkosnd vkSj mlds ekrk&firk dk O;ogkj mlds izfr vPNk ugha jgk Fkk vkSj ngst ds fy;s os yksx mls ijs'kku djus yxs] vkSj mlls dgrs Fks fd lkeku de fn;k gS vkSj #- 51]000@& dh ek¡x djrs FksA mldk ;g Hkh dguk gS] fd vkosnd mldks ckr&ckr ij rkus nsrk Fkk] vkSj mlds lkFk ekjihV Hkh djrk FkkA vkSj fnukad 27 uoEcj dh ?kVuk ds laca/k esa mldk dguk gS fd vkosnd us mlls dgk Fkk fd vius ekrk&firk dks Qksu djds #- 51]000@& e¡xokvksa vkSj tc mlus Qksu djus ls euk dj fn;k rks >xM+k c<+ x;k Fkk vkSj og jksus yxh Fkh rc mldh lkl us vkosnd ls dgk Fkk fd xksyh f[kyk nks] >¡>V gh feV tkosxk] rc vkosnd us mldks vukosfndk ds eq¡g esa xksyh Mky nh ftlls mldks ?kcjkgV gksus yxh ik¡p feuV esa og ?kcjkus yxh vkSj mldks pDdj vkus yxs] rFkk og tksj&tksj ls fpYykus yxh] rc fdlh us dgk fd vLirky ys tkvksA rc mldk ifr o llqj mldks vLirky ys x;s FksA vLirky igq¡apus ij og csgks'k gks xbZ FkhA bl lUnHkZ esa vukosfndk dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd tc mls gks'k vk;k rc mlds ifr o llqj ugha ?kj Fks] rFkk MkWDVj us mUgsa ckgj dj fn;k Fkk] vkSj mlls ckr dh Fkh] mlus xksyh f[kykus dh ckr MkWDVj dks crk;h Fkh mlds ckn mldk bykt pyk FkkA iqfyl Hkh vLirky esa vkbZ Fkh vkSj mlds c;ku fy;s FksA iqfyl ds vkus ds igys mlds ifr vkSj llqj us dgk Fkk fd xksyh f[kykus dh ckr fdlh dks ugha crkuk] ugha rks ekj MkysaxsA vkSj mlls ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd flj nq[k jgk Fkk] rks xksyh [kkbZ FkhA nks fnu vLirky esa HkrhZ jgus ds ckn og vius ekSlh ds ;gk¡a xbZ vkSj fQj ogk¡ ls viuh eEeh&ikik ds lkFk lhrkem pyh xbZ FkhA 10. The analysis of the evidence goes to show that while there were contradiction in the statement of the appellant and his father with respect to the reasons of the illness of wife, the plea of the respondent about demand of dowry and, she having given a pill which was hazardous and poisonous is supported by her father. 11. The analysis of the evidence goes to show that while there were contradiction in the statement of the appellant and his father with respect to the reasons of the illness of wife, the plea of the respondent about demand of dowry and, she having given a pill which was hazardous and poisonous is supported by her father. 11. In view of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs.