JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. Appellant Smt. Kanchan has assailed findings of Family Court passed in case No. 158/2007 and 21/08 dated 30.08.2008 passed by Family Court, Ajmer, whereby trial court has allowed respondent's petition for annulment of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and has simultaneously dismissed petition of the appellant, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 2. Heard submissions of rival sides, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appellant and respondent couple have lived together a life of married couple for several years but after getting employment conduct and behaviour of respondent has changed and he has harassed the appellant, she was beaten, sarcasted and untoward taunts were passed against her and without seeking treatment from general physician, she was administered treatment of Psychiatrist. She is an illiterate, innocent lady and is always ready to join consortium of her husband, so had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to restitute conjugal rights but learned court below has wrongly rejected her application. Respondent has failed to establish his case by positive evidence despite Family Court, Ajmer has wrongly passed a decree of divorce against the present petitioner, in favour of her respondent-husband Ram Swaroop, which is not tenable in the eye of law, so the findings of the court below be reversed and divorce decree be quashed and petition of the appellant, seeking restitution of conjugal rights be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has contended that appellant is a lady of unamicable temperament, she severally perperated cruelty against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, even she physically assaulted her mother-in-law and father-in-law and respondent husband was also given beatings by the appellant, she is not a lady of balanced mind and is ailing of mental disorder for which she was got treated by psychiatrist and remained under treatment but her mental condition has not improved, she once set a room ablazed and when smoke billowed out, then on detection, the fire was controlled. Appellant is a patient of psychiatric disorder, it is not feasible to join her marital companionship, the court below has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly passed decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the respondent and there is no infirmity in the finding of court below, appeals are not supported with cogent grounds and deserve to be dismissed. 4. 4. Having heard the submissions of both the sides, we have given our thoughtful considerations to the material available on the record and have examined the judgment. 5. Adverting upon the evidence, it emerges that petitioner respondent Ram Swaroop has proved his pleadings. 6. Corroborating contents of his pleadings, respondent Ram Swaroop AW-1 has stated that his marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 8.5.1989 and three issues were begot during the wedlock, out of which one baby got still birth, it has categorically been stated by Ram Swaroop that his appellant-wife used to quarrel with respondent's parents and while performing household chores, she used to complain that she was a servant and was accustomed to throw utensils, initially she was treated with Saradhna Hospital and was also kept hospitalized at Victoria Hospital, Ajmer for ten days and after few days' relief, she again started using filthy language and quarrelling. She used to utter that "After killing you all, she will commit suicide" and her behaviour gave scaring in the minds of his kids, he has also stated that once at night, she strangulated and tried to choke his neck, but was managed and got pacified. He has further stated that a false dowry case and cases pertaining to domestic violence were lodged against him and he has returned all the articles and has further stated that he apprehends danger to his life from her, since she can do anything and so has submitted for a divorce decree. He has also said that Ex.-1 is a prescription through which, she was got treated and Ex.-2 is notice, which was sent to her and Ex.-3 pertains to complaint made by her under Section 498A of IPC and Ex.-4 is its charge sheet, Ex.-5 being complaint pertaining to domestic violence, in cross examination this witness has been put to an interrogatory that health of the appellant would have deteriorated because of wrong treatment, which suggests that health conditions of the appellant were befitting and she was undergoing with some kind of physical infirmity and treatment thereof. 7. 7. It has also been stated by this witness that since she beats the children hence they were advised to stay away from her and on interrogatory, it has been replied by this witness **;g xyr gS fd vizkFkhZ;k us vkx ugha yxk;h gks dsoy cRrh okyk Lvksi cq>kus ij og tyrk jgk gksA** , which also suggests that a kind of wrecklessness was acted by her, which could have been resulted in a catastrophe, admittedly leaving stove in a burning condition, reflects an act of non-vigilant mental state. 8. Ex.-1 is a prescription of Dr. Anand Mathur, Head of the Department of Psychiatry of Jawahar Lal Nehru College and Hospital, Ajmer, shows that patient Kanchan was admitted on 02.01.2002 and was discharged on 10.1.2002 vide registration No. 127 with complaints of "irrelevant talk", "violent behaviour", "phobia" and she was treated with Psychiatric medicinal treatment and vide Ex.-3 Smt. Kanchan lodged a report for the offence under Section 498-A, 406, 120-B read with 420 of IPC against her respondent-husband Ram Swaroop, her father-in-law Shankarlal and mother-in-law Patasi and FIR No. 157/2005 was lodged for the alleged offence under Section 498-A, 406 read with 4/6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and its charge sheet No. 154/2005 was filed for the offence under section 498-A, 406 read with 4/6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Shankarlal, Ram Swaroop and Patasi on 3.10.2005, fate of this charge sheet/trial has been divulged, but it is obvious that a criminal case was lodged by the appellant against her respondent-husband. 9. Respondent Ram Swaroop has produced AW-2 Shankar, AW-3 Rajendra Kumar, AW-4 Tarachand and AW-5 Gordhan and all these witnesses have deposed that the conduct of appellant Kanchan was cordial and she was cruel to her husband and perperated cruelty towards her husband and in-laws. 10. Testimony of all these witnesses discloses that behaviour of appellant Kanchan has remained amicable with her spouse and in-laws. 11. 10. Testimony of all these witnesses discloses that behaviour of appellant Kanchan has remained amicable with her spouse and in-laws. 11. Smt. Kanchan, present appellant, has been examined as NAW-1, she has stated that her marriage was solemnized with Ram Swaroop about seventeen to eighteen years ago, in view of the age of the deponent, it appears that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was a child-marriage and she has deposed that she was unnecessarily harassed and ousted by her husband and was beaten without any cause, in cross-examination she has negated all the suggestions and even said that it is wrong that her treatment would have taken place in respect of her mental sickness, which is obviously contrary to the fact because Ex.-1 shows that she was got treated and remained hospitalised owing to psychiatric problem. 12. She has also stated that she did register any report in respect of beatings since she was inclined to remain in matrimonial company of respondent, which too is correct since Ex.-3 and Ex.-4 pertains to FIR under section 498-A, 406 of IPC coupled with 4/6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and charge-sheet was also filed against the respondent, his father and mother. 13. NAW-2 Harnath, has stated that Kanchan is residing with him for last three and a half years since her abandonment, he too has said that a case in respect of domestic violence and dowry is pending against Ram Swaroop. Harnath has also said that Kanchan was mentally disturbed nor her treatment was done, which too is against the documentary evidence as established by Ex.-1. 14. NAW-3 Gopal has also stated that Kanchan is living apart for three and a half years, he has accepted that an incident of fire had taken place, when Kanchan was preparing tea but it was due to her negligence. NAW-4 Gordhan Singh has also accepted this aspect of flame mishap. NAW-5 Kesar, father of Kanchan, has stated that a demand for Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle was made towards dowry but in cross-examination he has shown his inability to express the date and month of the said demand. 15. All the witnesses of the appellant have accepted that case pertaining to dowry and domestic violence have been lodged by Kanchan. NAW-5 Kesar, father of Kanchan, has stated that a demand for Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle was made towards dowry but in cross-examination he has shown his inability to express the date and month of the said demand. 15. All the witnesses of the appellant have accepted that case pertaining to dowry and domestic violence have been lodged by Kanchan. It has also emerged from the evidence of appellant Smt. Kanchan that after employment, demand for dowry was raised, which is obviously unbelievable, since appellant has resided alongwith her husband in his consortium for more than a decade's time and no such demand for dowry was there in that period and after getting employment and begetting three kids, demand was allegedly raised, which appears to be unbelievable and such an aspect does infuse reliance and obviously is creditworthy. 16. Considering the aforesaid in totality, it is apparent that appellant Smt. Kanchan lodged a criminal FIR against her husband and a case under domestic violence is also stated to be sub-judice. Documentary evidence Ex.-1 establishes that Kanchan was got treated and she remained admitted in JLN Medical College, Ajmer in the Department of Psychiatry under the treatment of its Head of the Department Dr. Anand Mathur and she was suffering from "irrelevant talk", "violent behaviour" and "phobia" obviously, which are symptoms of psychiatric-disorder and relates to mental ailment, the patient has been treated with sedatives and drugs commonly administered in mental disorder cases. 17. Evidence led by the respondent Ram Swaroop is creditworthy and is well supported with documentary evidence. Couple has got two surviving children, Rajendra and Bablu, who were 10 and 8 years of age respectively, at the time of presentation of the petition, but none has come forward or has been produced in the evidence to divulge veracity, both or anyone of them could have been witness of worth to reveal truth. It was open to both the sides to call and produce the said witnesses in the evidence. It has also emerged in the evidence that appellant Smt. Kanchan, nurtures a quarrelsome temperament and she has often daunted that she will eliminate herself after killing in-laws. 18. In view of the testimony, it is candid that Ram Swaroop has succeeded in establishing his cause to seek dissolution of marriage and has adduced positive evidence to prove his case. 19. 18. In view of the testimony, it is candid that Ram Swaroop has succeeded in establishing his cause to seek dissolution of marriage and has adduced positive evidence to prove his case. 19. As such, there appears no reason to interfere with the findings of dissolution of marriage and taking note of the entire evidence, we are persuaded to disturb the findings of section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, since Smt. Kanchan has failed to give reason for restitution of conjugal rights. 20. Therefore, both the appeals being D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 4420/2008 and 4592/2008 fails and are hereby dismissed, accordingly. 21. No costs.