JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is a defendant’s appeal against reversing judgment. 2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant is his legally married wife. She left the house of the plaintiff two days before Kartika Purnima, 1982 on the pretext of attending the Balijatra at Khuntapali against the wish of the plaintiff. She did not return. All his attempt to bring her back was futile. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief’s mentioned supra. 3. The defendant entered contest and filed written statement pleading inter alia that after marriage, the plaintiff and his mother treated her with cruelty. While she was in advanced stage of pregnancy, she was driven out by the plaintiff. She was compelled to stay in the house of her parents. She gave birth to a daughter. The plaintiff never came to see her and the daughter. He did not take care of them. A panchayat was convened in Aswin 1982, whereafter the plaintiff took her and the daughter. Again she was tortured and driven out from the house in Margasira, 1982. The reconciliation made by her father failed. She was compelled to initiate proceeding under Sec.125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck five issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that there is no evidence that the witnesses examined by the plaintiff had gone to the house of the defendant to bring her back at any point of time. The defendant was not staying in her parent’s house for ten years. The husband had not made any attempt to bring her back. The plaintiff was not guilty of deserting the defendant after ill-treatment. The application for restitution of conjugal rights had been filed was not bona fide. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed T.A. No. 10/21 of 1986-87 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bargarh. Learned lower appellate court came to hold that the learned trial court had placed burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had withdrawn from the plaintiff without just or reasonable cause. Her testimony cannot be accepted to be the gospel truth with regard to cruelty, ill-treatment. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 5. Learned lower appellate court came to hold that the learned trial court had placed burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant had withdrawn from the plaintiff without just or reasonable cause. Her testimony cannot be accepted to be the gospel truth with regard to cruelty, ill-treatment. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law enumerated in ground no.6(a) of the memorandum of appeal. The same is: “6(a) Whether the learned lower appellate court committed error in disbelieving the testimony of the defendants relating to torture, ill-treatment and cruelty on the ground that the said testimony has not been corroborated by other witnesses and whether in every case there should be independent corroboration ?” 6. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Mishra, learned counsel, on behalf of Mr. S.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court on an assessment of evidence on record held that the wife had been separated from the husband before ten years before institution of the suit, but no attempt had been made by the husband to bring her back. But the learned lower appellate court reversed the decree on the ground that there is no independent corroboration with regard to torture and ill-treatment of the defendant. The finding is perverse. 8. On an anatomy pleading of the parties and evidence on record, learned trial court came to hold that the defendant was residing with her parents. The plaintiff had not made any attempt to bring her back. Learned lower appellate court reversed the decree and disbelieved the testimony of the defendant on the ground that the same has not been corroborated. To say the least, the finding is perverse. It is not expected that the others will remain present as spectators at the time of torture or ill-treatment. The substantial question of law has been answered accordingly. 9. In the ultimate analysis, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the suit is dismissed.