JUDGMENT : Govind Mathur, J. 1. By judgment dated 19.1.2015, learned Family Court decided an application preferred under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') and also an application preferred under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by the appellant. Learned Family Court, while granting the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent, rejected the application to have a decree for divorce. 2. The appeals preferred to challenge the judgment are before us and we deem it appropriate to first examine the appeal (D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.580/2015) giving challenge to the judgment and decree rejecting the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. 3. In brief, factual matrix of the case is that the appellant entered into wedlock with respondent on 15.5.2003 and out of that a female child born. The appellant alleging cruelty preferred an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 with assertion that the respondent for one or other reason used to harass, humiliate and victimise her. As per the appellant, the respondent after having the girl child used to abuse her and also made several demands to have a peaceful matrimony. The respondent, as per the appellant, also made an effort to abduct her when she was staying with her parents. Several criminal cases were also lodged between the parties due to ill-treatment to the appellant on part of the respondent. The respondent also remained behind the bars for ten days in the year 2008. In the application specific incidents were mentioned about extension of ill-treatment and victimisation of the appellant by the respondent. 4. In reply, the respondent denied most of the facts with specific assertion that the appellant without having divorce entered into a marriage with other person and, therefore, the application to have divorce decree was filed. The respondent also preferred an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, as already stated above. 5. Learned Family Court, after examining entire evidence available on record, arrived at the conclusion that no adequate evidence is available on record to establish cruelty, however, looking to the admitted position that the appellant was residing with her parents since 2008, considered it appropriate to grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 6. 5. Learned Family Court, after examining entire evidence available on record, arrived at the conclusion that no adequate evidence is available on record to establish cruelty, however, looking to the admitted position that the appellant was residing with her parents since 2008, considered it appropriate to grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 6. In appeal, the appellant has reiterated all the allegations and emphasised that on basis of the evidence available on record there is no doubt about cruel attitude of the respondent. 7. By an order dated 1.5.2017, this Court directed the parties to remain personally present for conciliation. In pursuance thereto, the parties appeared before us on 10.5.2017. After having deliberations with the parties collectively and independently we noticed that there are no chances for amicable settlement. During the course of conciliation we noticed that in fact the respondent is also not interested to continue the marriage, but just to get his ego satisfied he want appellant to be with him for few days. On asking the respondent in quite unambiguous terms stated that he is not at all interested in continuing the marriage but he want to teach a lesson to the appellant. On further asking he also stated that he do not want to keep his daughter with him and if the Court desires he can have her daughter as well as other two children of the appellant said to be born out of second marriage. 8. In entirety, we noticed highly negative and male chauvinist approach of the respondent. His body language depicts an attitude against honour and pride of a woman and that itself is sufficient to be treated as a cruelty. In entirety, we are of the view that the marriage between the parties deserves to be annulled. 9. Accordingly, the appeal (D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.580/2015) giving challenge to the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2015, passed by the Family Court, rejecting the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and denying for decree to annul marriage, is set aside. The application is allowed. The marriage solemnised between the parties on 15.5.2003 is hereby annulled. 10. In view of the fact that we have already granted the application preferred under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by the appellant, the appeal (D.B. Civil Misc. The application is allowed. The marriage solemnised between the parties on 15.5.2003 is hereby annulled. 10. In view of the fact that we have already granted the application preferred under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 by the appellant, the appeal (D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.581/2015) preferred to challenge the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2015 granted under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 19.1.2015, accepting the application preferred under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 and granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is set aside. No order to costs.