JUDGMENT : Dr. H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., 1. The present appellant had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (henceforth referred to as ‘the Court below’, for brevity) against the respondent herein, seeking restitution of conjugal rights by directing the respondent, who is said to be his wife, to join him to lead marital life. The Court below by its judgment and decree dated 19.12.2014, has dismissed the petition of the petitioner before it on merit. It is the said order, the appellant has challenged in this appeal. 2. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken a contention that the Court below has not appreciated the evidence led before it in its proper perspective. It did not appreciate the legal notice dated 20.04.2014 issued by him to the respondent, which shows that the respondent did not oblige to join him in her marital home. Further stating that the finding of the Court below that the appellant had suppressed the material facts of his marriage was an erroneous finding, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and consequentially to allow the petition filed by him in the Court below. 3. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the materials placed before this Court including the judgment and decree under appeal. 4. It is not in dispute that the parties to the litigation are husband and wife by relationship. According to the husband/appellant, their marriage was solemnized on 22.05.2013 in Virupaksha Swamy Temple, Hampi, Hosapete taluk, Ballari district, which statement has not been denied by the wife/respondent. However, it is the case of the husband that, from the month of July-2013, his wife/respondent started behaving indifferently with him and also started demanding entering her name and also the name of her son Amruth Naik in the service register of the appellant. According to appellant, the said Amruth Naik was not born to him, but he was born to the respondent/wife through her first husband Sri.Bheemanaik @ Muttu Raj. However, the respondent has kept the fact of her first marriage and subsequent divorce of that marriage as a secret from the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent/wife while bringing her son Amruth Naik to the house of the appellant introduced the said son as her younger brother. However, the respondent has kept the fact of her first marriage and subsequent divorce of that marriage as a secret from the appellant. According to the appellant, the respondent/wife while bringing her son Amruth Naik to the house of the appellant introduced the said son as her younger brother. It is the further case of the appellant that, in day to day’s life also the respondent was not co-operating and was disputing with him in every aspect; she was not providing food etc., and also was not co-operating in sexual marital life; on her own wish she left his company and went to Davanagere, where her parents were residing and she wanted the appellant to stay with her in her parents’ house at Davanagere as ‘Mane Aliya’. It is his further case that from the date 10.04.2014 till the date, she has been living away from him without his permission and his efforts to bring her back went in futile. This made him to issue her a legal notice dated 20.04.2014, for which she has not replied. On the contrary, she has filed criminal miscellaneous petition No.174/2014 against him seeking maintenance, which is pending before the Family Court at Davanagere. She has also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in criminal M.C.No.140/2014, which is pending before the JMFC II Court at Davanagere. The appellant reiterating all these aspects in detail in his examination-in- chief in the form of affidavit evidence as PW.1, has also got examined two more witnesses from his side as PWs.2 and 3. 5. PW.2-M.R.Madhumohan is said to be the younger brother of the appellant, who has reproduced all the allegations made by his brother against the respondent even in his examination-in-chief in the affidavit evidence. PW.3 one Sri.Mohammad Rafiq, claiming himself to be a private school teacher and a friend of the appellant, has also stated that the respondent has left the company of the appellant for no valid reasons. From the petitioner’s side in the Court below, documents from Exs.P.1 to P.30 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-wife, she alone got examined as RW.1, but no documents were got marked on her behalf. 6. From the petitioner’s side in the Court below, documents from Exs.P.1 to P.30 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-wife, she alone got examined as RW.1, but no documents were got marked on her behalf. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant in his argument reiterated the contents of the affidavit evidence of the appellant-husband and submitted that, despite the appellant demonstrating before the Court below that the respondent-wife was constantly harassing the appellant husband and was not co-operating with him, but the said aspects have not been considered by the Court below. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife in his argument submitted that the appellant has suppressed the fact of he also being a divorcee prior to his marriage and that his two sisters, who were residing near to the house of the appellant, were constantly ill-treating the respondent and were treating the present respondent as though she was their domestic servant. This made the respondent-wife to file a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, while concluding his argument, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant-husband, who is constantly making false accusation against his wife, cannot seek restitution of his conjugal rights and compel her to stay with him. 8. From the evidence of both sides, it is clear that after their marriage on 22.05.2013, the parties were residing together in the house of the appellant at Ballari only for few months. Thereafter, the respondent started living away from her husband in her parents’ house at Davanagere. In order to be entitled for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the spouse should establish that his husband/wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from his/her society. In the instant case, undisputedly the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the appellant, which is clear from their pleadings itself. However, the appellant being the petitioner in the Court below was required to establish that such leaving of his wife from her matrimonial house was without any reasonable excuse. The appellant in his claim petition as well as in his evidence as PW.1, throughout has made several accusations against his wife, accusing that she did suppress the fact of her marriage which ended in divorce and she begetting Amruth Naik as his son. He has also accused his wife’s non-cooperation in his family. The appellant in his claim petition as well as in his evidence as PW.1, throughout has made several accusations against his wife, accusing that she did suppress the fact of her marriage which ended in divorce and she begetting Amruth Naik as his son. He has also accused his wife’s non-cooperation in his family. His allegations have gone to the extent that she had removed photo of her father-in-law from the frame and displayed her father’s photo and was performing pooja. He has further stated that, within few months after his marriage with her, the respondent started insisting him to include her name as well the name of her son Amruth Naik in the appellant’s service register and KGID policies, which the appellant refused to do. No doubt, the appellant as a petitioner in the Court below has also produced some documents in the form of rent agreement, school record of Amruth Naik, birth certificate of Amruth Naik, marriage invitation of respondent’s first marriage, etc., to establish the alleged first marriage of the respondent with one Sri.Bheema Naik. However, what is to be noticed here is, the appellant as a petitioner in the Court below, by way of producing those documents and leading his evidence so also that of PWs.2 and 3, could only tried to establish the alleged first marriage of the respondent with one Sri.Bheema Naik and dissolution of the said marriage at a subsequent date through judicial proceedings. However, at no part of his pleading or in his evidence he could able to establish as to how the said conduct of the respondent has resulted in she living separately or that how those documents would convince that there was no reasonable excuse for her to live separately at her parents’ house. On the contrary, it was elicited in the cross-examination of the appellant, who was examined as PW1 in the Court below, that the respondent-wife had replied to his legal notice and that in the said notice, she has expressed her willingness to come back to the house of the petitioner/appellant. In the very next sentence of the same cross-examination, of PW.1 himself has stated that his wife had also told that there was life threat to her. By stating so, the PW.1 himself has falsified his earlier statement that the respondent did not reply to his notice. In the very next sentence of the same cross-examination, of PW.1 himself has stated that his wife had also told that there was life threat to her. By stating so, the PW.1 himself has falsified his earlier statement that the respondent did not reply to his notice. Further, he knew the fact that his wife had an apprehension of threat to her life in her marital home. 9. Secondly, it is the defence as well the case of the respondent-wife that, within few months after the marriage with appellant, she was constantly being harassed and ill-treated by her husband as well the elder sister of her husband, who was residing within a vicinity of 500 metres from her husband’s house at Ballari. Though the petitioner-husband has denied it, however, in his cross-examination as PW.1, he has stated that his elder sister Renuka Bai was residing at about a distance of 1½ k.m. from his house. From this aspect it becomes very difficult to disbelieve the statement of RW.1- the wife, that the elder sister of her husband was constantly harassing her and interfering in their family. Further, the respondent who was examined as RW.1 in the Court below, in her examination-in-chief has stated that there is life threat to her from the petitioner-husband. Even in her cross-examination, she maintained the same stand and reiterated that there was life threat to her. A specific question was put to her about her willingness to join her husband, for which she replied that there is life threat from the petitioner, which question and answer is reproduced here below: xxx xxx xxx 10. In this way, the petitioner has elicited as a voluntary statement from the respondent-wife about his knowing the apprehension of the respondent that she has threat to her life if she joins her husband. The said apprehension of the wife has come out in her evidence also. In her cross-examination from the petitioner’s side in the form of above question and answer, it was further crystallized, but no effort was made from the petitioner husband’s side to deny it. The said apprehension of the wife has come out in her evidence also. In her cross-examination from the petitioner’s side in the form of above question and answer, it was further crystallized, but no effort was made from the petitioner husband’s side to deny it. In this way, instead of the petitioner could able to establish that there was no reasonable excuse for his wife to live separately from him, the wife herself could able to show that she could not join her husband for various reasons including threat to her life as well as to the life of her son. 11. In addition to the above, it also can be noticed that neither in his petition nor in his examination-in-chief as PW.1, nowhere the petitioner has disclosed about he also being a divorcee earlier. It was elicited in his cross-examination that he was also a divorcee. Observing this, the Court below considered that the petitioner before it had not approached the Court with clean hands. 12. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 would in no way better than the evidence of PW.1 in their reliability. Admittedly PW.2 is the younger brother of the appellant and that he himself has stated that he has been residing with the appellant. As such, it is quite expected of him that he would support his brother. His examination-inchief in the form of affidavit evidence also induces not even a single fact, which is exclusive to his knowledge or information. All that he has stated in his examination-in-chief is nothing but a summary of what his brother as PW.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief. 13. The PW.3 is also a school teacher and a friend of PW.1. He has also reproduced summary of the allegation made by PW.1 against the respondent in his affidavit evidence as PW.1. PW.3 has also made several allegations, like respondent replacing the photograph of her father-in-law with that of her father and performing pooja to it, which normally expected to be to the exclusive knowledge of the family members of the parties to the litigation, but not to an outsider. PW.3 has also stated in his affidavit evidence that it was the appellant himself who had paid advance amount to the lease of the house and was paying electricity and water bills. PW.3 has also stated in his affidavit evidence that it was the appellant himself who had paid advance amount to the lease of the house and was paying electricity and water bills. All these aspects of regular payments of electricity and water bills being the internal matters of maintenance of a family, it is not known how come all these details were to the knowledge of PW.3, who admittedly was a third party. In this way, the evidence of PW.3 does not inspire confidence to believe. The said witness in his cross-examination has stated that all the contents of his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit were based on the information given by the appellant. In this way, this witness has made it clear that there was little in his examination-in-chief, which were to his personal knowledge but his entire examination-in15 chief was based on what the appellant had told him. In this way, his evidence also does not inspire any confidence to believe. 14. All these aspects could only establish that there was some difference of opinion between the parties to the litigation and that the respondent-wife has been residing separately from her husband. The undisputed fact that she has filed a criminal case in criminal miscellaneous No.174/2014 seeking maintenance from the appellant and she has also filed a criminal M.C.No.140/2014 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, further go to show that she has some excuses to live separately from her husband. All these aspects clearly go to show that the appellant as a petitioner in the Court below has failed to establish that the respondent-wife has withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuses. The Court below since has arrived at the said conclusion giving convincing reasons to it, we find no reason to interfere in it. 15. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal stands dismissed.