JUDGMENT : Validity of judgment and decree dated 18.2.2014 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.335/2012 whereby the divorce petition preferred by respondent-plaintiff has been accepted and application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act preferred by the appellant defendant has been disallowed, questioned by way of two separate appeals, Appeal No.345/2014 has been preferred challenging the validity of divorce and Appeal No.346/2014 against dismissal of application seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 2. Heard both the sides, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has committed material illegality in rejecting the application of the appellant moved under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and accepting petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act by decreeing divorce petition. Appellant-plaintiff failed to establish allegations of cruelty and no positive evidence was adduced to prove cruelty, the appellant has not committed any cruelty. Appellant is very much prepared to live with the respondent, but learned lower court committed error in not appreciating the evidence in proper perception. Hence, the appeals be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and application of the appellant preferred under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act be allowed. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondent has submitted that plaintiff has succeeded in establishing evidence pertaining to cruelty, so mutually a settlement was also reduced into writing for effectuating mutual divorce at family level. Plaintiff-respondent was subjected to cruelty, so there was no occasion for the respondent to reside and live in the company of appellant-defendant. Hence, the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent does not need interference and application under Section 9 preferred by the appellant-defendant has rightly been rejected and decree for divorce has correctly been passed. 3. Plaint relating to divorce petition, filed by respondent Smt. Abhilasha under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act discloses that the couple had married on 2.9.2009 and no issue begotten out of wedlock, defendant Sunil allured her under pretext of putting Mehandi upon his family members and then forcibly compelled her to marry and in order to protect dignity of the family, plaintiff's parents agreed to ceremonies marriage, further contentions of physical and mental cruelty and demand of dowry with threats have also been pleaded, which has been countered by the pleadings as raised in the written statements by the defendant. 4. 4. The record contains Ex.4 (4A) an admitted "mutual agreement" relating to determination of marital relations, which has been executed between the 'couple' reads as under :- Jhefr vfHkyk"kk mQZ jkuw iq=h yhyh/kj th iapksyh mez 19 o"kZ fuoklh xaxkiqj Fkkuk xaxkiqj rg0 lgkM+k ftyk fHkyokM+kA %ndjkjdrhZ izFkei{k%% Jh lquhy mQZ lksuw firk eksgu yky th frokM+h vk;q 24 o"kZ fuoklh xaxkiqj Fkkuk xaxkiqj rg0 lgkM+k ftyk HkhyokM+k %%bdjkjxzfgrk f}rh;i{k%% eSa izFke i{k vki f}rh;i{k ds i{k esas fuEu bdjkjukek fy[kk;s nsrh gwa fd%& 1- ;g fd eq> izFke i{k dh 'kknh vki f}rh;i{k ds lkFk leLr /kkfeZd jhfr fjoktkuqlkj vk;Z lekt efUnj HkhyokM+k esa fnuakd 02-09-2009 dks lEiUu gqbZ FkhA eSa izFkei{k vki f}rh;i{k ds ;gka ij tkdj nkEiR; thou dk fuoZgu fd;k ijUrq 'kknh ds dqN le; i'pkr~ gh gekjs vkil esa eu eqVko gks tkus dh otg ls lkFk esa jguk nwHkZj gks x;k gSA 2- ;g fd eq> izFkei{k o f}rh;i{k ds ifjtuksa us feydj ge nksuksa i{kksa ds fookg lEcU/k dks foPNsn djus dk fu.kZ; fd;k gSA ftl ij eq> izFkei{k o vki f}rh;i{k dks fdlh izdkj dh vkifRr ugha gSA 3- ;g fd vki f}rh;i{k us oDr 'kknh ds le; eq> izFkei{k ds ifjokjtu dks eq> izFkei{k dh Hkfo"; lqj{kk ds fy;s nks yk[k :i;s ,Q0Mh0 gsrq udn fn;s Fks] mlesa ls ,d yk[k :i;s eq> izFkei{k ds ifjokjtu }kjk vki f}rh;i{k us ,d eq'r izkIr dj fy;s gS rFkk 'ks"k ,d yk[k :i;s eq> izFke i{k ds ikl gh jgsaxsA rFkk eSa izFkei{k vki f}rh;i{k ds tehu tk;nkn esa ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha dj ldwaxhA 4- ;g fd eq> izFkei{k o vki f}rh;i{k ds lEcU/k vkt ls ifr iRuh gksus dh ugha gS rFkk Hkfo"; esa vki f}rh;i{k dgh ij Hkh vk;s tk;s 'kknh fookg djs eq> izFkei{k o esjs ifjokjtu dks fdlh izdkj dh mtj vkifRr ugha gksxh rFkk u gh dksbZ Hkh dksVZ dk;Zokgh vki f}rh;i{k o vkids ifjtu ds fo:) dj ldwaxhA vkt fnukad ls gh eq> izFkei{k ds ikl vki f}rh;i{k dk dksbZ ystnst o tj tsojkr cdk;k ugha gSA okLrs izek.k ;g bdjkjukek eq> izFkei{k us vki f}rh;i{k ds gd esa lgh gks'k gok'k] fcuk fdlh u'ks irs] Lora= bPNk ls ,oa fcuk fdlh ncko ds vkt fnukad 03-03-2010 dks fu"ikfnr djok uksVsjh ls izekf.kr djok fn;k gSA lks lgh lun jgs oDr t:jr dke vkosA xaxkiqj fnukad% 03-03-2010** and appellant Sunil has accepted his signature on this document. 5. Perusal of evidence shows that respondent-plaintiff Smt. Abhilasha Sharma has proved pleadings by her evidence and she has asserted that divorce agreement reduced into writing between both the parties is Ex.4 and in her cross-examination, she has reiterated that her marriage was solemnized under conspiracy, Sunil invited her for putting Mehandi to his family members and under that pretension, she was taken away to Bhilwara and was forcibly asked to sign on 28th August, 2009, she has also said that she was betrothed elsewhere, despite she was forced to marry and has denied that under alleged duress, she had taken recourse of legal action against Sunil. PW-2 Liladhar Sharma, father of respondent-plaintiff Smt. Abhilasha, has also supported evidence of her daughter, in his cross-examination, Liladhar has also said that appellant had fled away with his daughter and has also said that Sunil had threatened over telephone that if his daughter was not permitted to marry in three days' time, then she would be sold somewhere outside, so he had agreed for the marriage. 6. DW-1 respondent Sunil, while cross-examined has said that his marriage with Abhilasha was love marriage and has accepted that Ex.4A contains his signature, which was written on 3.3.2010 at Gangapur, he has also said that it is correct that case under Section 498A was lodged against him and Ex.3 is its charge sheet. He has further said that he too had lodged a FIR regarding beating and snatching of chain, which is Ex.7 and allegation of chain snatching was found false after investigation in that case. He has also said that on 23.10.2010, mother of Abhilasha Smt. Chanda Devi has also lodged FIR Ex.8 against him and Ex.6 was its challan. He has further admitted that during the pendency of application under Section 9 agreement regarding separation was executed. He has admitted his name in Ex.2, which pertains to his detention under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. in case No.8/2010, which too relates in respect of abortive attempt to kidnap Abhilasha again. 7. Appreciation of evidence discussed above suffice to indicate that Ex.4 (4A)was reduced into writing between both the parties pertaining to their mutual separation at family level at free will, and registering of a criminal case under Section 498A coupled with other proceedings relating to his arrest and preventive action. 7. Appreciation of evidence discussed above suffice to indicate that Ex.4 (4A)was reduced into writing between both the parties pertaining to their mutual separation at family level at free will, and registering of a criminal case under Section 498A coupled with other proceedings relating to his arrest and preventive action. Factual aspect of these cases are well admitted by the appellant. It has also been admitted that out of Rs.2 lacs, one lac was already received back by groom-side. In view of the aforesaid, respondent-plaintiff Smt. Abhilasha has succeeded in establishing her case for seeking divorce, so there appears no infirmity or illegality in the judgment impugned, as such, we are of the view that learned trial court has rightly passed decree for divorce, while rejecting application for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, both the appeal lacks merit and are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Cost easy.