JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This appeal is filed by the wife - Suparna Chakraborty - challenging the judgment and order dated 11/2/2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati in F.C (Civil) No. 509/2012, by which, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been awarded in favour of her husband - Jaydeep Nath. The Family Court has also directed Suparna Chakraborty to return to her husband within two (2) months and to resume conjugal life with him. 2. Jaydeep Nath and Suparna Chakraborty got married on 2/5/2005 under Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup. Thereafter, according to Jaydeep Nath, they started living in his house. But, Suparna Chakraborty withdrew from his society on 7/12/2011 blaming him in abnormal manners and went to her parent’s house bag and baggage. Later on, taking the opportunity of his absence in the house, she also took away all her furniture. So, he filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. He further stated that he was willing to take Suparna Chakraborty back and start his married life afresh. 3. Suparna Chakraborty filed a written statement stating inter-alia that after her marriage, both the parties started living in a rented house and never stayed in the house of Jaydeep Nath, as claimed. According to her, Jaydeep Nath was a lazy person and always used to depend on her parent’s house for his day-to-day needs and comforts. He did not even cared to prepare his much needed meals and never intended to even purchase furniture. For these reasons, she had to go to her parent’s house with necessary clothes and personal belongings. Besides, she stated that as the marriage was solemnized under the Special marriage Act,1954 and without adhering to the rites and rituals of the Hindu Laws, she was not expected or obliged to return to Jaydeep Nath for carrying marital as well as social obligations. Therefore, she prayed for a decree of divorce. 4. Jaydeep Nath adduced his evidence before the Family Court. But, Suparna Chakraborty did neither cross-examine him nor adduced her evidence. Jaydeep Nath supported his statements during his examination-in-chief which remained un-assailed and as such, the Family Court decreed his petition as aforesaid. 5. Suparna Chakraborty did not contest the suit. Therefore, she prayed for a decree of divorce. 4. Jaydeep Nath adduced his evidence before the Family Court. But, Suparna Chakraborty did neither cross-examine him nor adduced her evidence. Jaydeep Nath supported his statements during his examination-in-chief which remained un-assailed and as such, the Family Court decreed his petition as aforesaid. 5. Suparna Chakraborty did not contest the suit. She neither cross-examined Jaydeep Nath nor adduced evidence to support her case to prove that Jaydeep Nath was, in fact, not worthy to be lived with; and there was reasonable and compelling grounds for her withdrawal from his society. As such, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of Jaydeep Nath. Besides, the grounds set forth by her, although not supported by her evidence, do not seem to us to be appealing for withdrawing society of her husband. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Family Court rightly decreed the suit. 6. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merit.