JUDGMENT Srivastava, J. -- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2017 passed by Principle Judge, Family Court, Panna, in Hindu Marriage Case No. 67/2015 whereby the learned Court below has directed the appellant to live with the respondent/husband at her matrimonial home and discharge her obligations as his married wife. 2. It is not in dispute between the parties that marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnÁed on 30.1.2015 at Hotel Taj, Khajuraho, Distt. Panna, according to Hindu rites. 3. Facts available on record go to show that, the respondent/husband filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the trial Court contending inter alia therein that after marriage, appellant and respondent lived happily in the house of husband at Indrapuri Colony, Panna, for a period of two weeks. Thereafter after a period of a week second Bidai (farewell of bride) appellant/wife went to her parental home to live separately she lived for a period of two months happily in the house of husband. During this period she told that the marriage was performed against her will and she would not live with respondent husband any further. Thereafter she called her father and along with her father she went to her parental home. Father and other family members of the respondent/husband had gone to her parental home to bring her back, but she refused to meet them and the mother of the appellant said that she does not want to go back to Panna and wants to marry with some other person. The respondent has further contended in his application that brother of appellant threatened his family members to falsely implicate in the case of dowry. The appellant also possessed jewelery worth Rupees Three Lacs, which were purchased by the respondent/husband. The respondent tried to bring her back to his home but could not succeed and the appellant is living separately without any cause depriving him of his marital life. Therefore, it was prayed that an order of restitution of conjugal rights be passed against the appellant/wife. 4. Per-contra, the appellant/wife has denied all the averments and stated that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and was being mentally tortured, due to which she had left respondent/husband's house. Therefore, it was prayed that an order of restitution of conjugal rights be passed against the appellant/wife. 4. Per-contra, the appellant/wife has denied all the averments and stated that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and was being mentally tortured, due to which she had left respondent/husband's house. According to the appellant/wife, her marriage with the respondent was performed by playing fraud. She further contended that respondent/husband is used to consume alcohol and drugs and his behavior was cruel. It is further contended that the respondent/husband is trying to falsely implicate her in the offence of theft of Rupees Three Lacs. She has also alleged that her sister-in-law (Nanad) and other family members of the respondent/husband detained her in a room and did not provide food, torturing her mentally and physically also. It is said that Sister-in-law of husband twice or thrice had burnt her through incense stick and tea. Therefore, it is impossible for her to live with the respondent and his family members. 5. Learned Principle Judge, after considering the evidence, pronounced the impugned judgment on 24.7.2017. 6. In the present appeal, counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court erred in passing the impugned judgment without taking into consideration the pleadings so also the oral and documentary evidence brought on record. Learned Court below held that the appellant is living separately without any sufficient reason, which is unjustified whereas in the reply, it is categorically stated that husband used to treat her wife with cruelty and further used to harass her. There is also specific pleading that family members of respondent/husband have demanded from her dowry and for that, they have tortured her, because of which she was compelled to live at her parental house to save her life. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is improper, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law and deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the respondent and his family members made an effort to take her home back but she has refused to come. The respondent is willing to live with her but she is living at her parental home without any jusified reason. The respondent has never been ruthless with her, whereas on the contrary, when he went to take her back, he was abused by her family members. The respondent is willing to live with her but she is living at her parental home without any jusified reason. The respondent has never been ruthless with her, whereas on the contrary, when he went to take her back, he was abused by her family members. He further submits that she falsely implicated his family members in the offence of domestic violence at Datia. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that it was for the appellant/wife to show sufficient reasons for withdrawing herself from the society of her husband, which she has failed to do so. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly granted the decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in favour of the respondent. 8. Heard the arguments of the parties and perused the record. 9. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as under : "9. Restitution of conjugal rights -- When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the District Court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. Explanation.-- Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society." 10. In order to sustain a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, it is necessary to establish that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner. The society means conjugal society. Thus, the onus is on the petitioner who can succeed only on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence set up. The Explanation added to section 9 by the amending Act of 1976, has merely provided for a rule of evidence by laying down the burden of proof in regard to a question whether there has been a reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of the petitioning spouse on the party pleading excuse. The Explanation added to section 9 by the amending Act of 1976, has merely provided for a rule of evidence by laying down the burden of proof in regard to a question whether there has been a reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of the petitioning spouse on the party pleading excuse. This burden of proof is very light since the spouses are always supposed to live together and if he or she lives separately, it is for that person to prove the conditions which have necessitated such a course to be taken Thereafter, that burden would shift to the other party to show that he or she has withdrawn from the society of the other for a reasonable excuse. 11. In the light of above discussion we must see evidence available in the present case. 12. On perusal of the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is very well apparent that the appellant/wife had stayed at her matrimonial home for about two months. In support of the respondent/husband, Bhagwat Narayan Sahu, Om Prakash Sahu and Kalpna Chauhan have deposed their statement stating that the appellant/wife is not ready to live with respondent and she wants to marry with some other person. Appellant wife Rinki Sahu admitted in her evidence that she has left matrimonial home on 16.5.2015. Father of appellant wife, Bela Sahu also admitted this fact in his evidence. It is also apparent from the evidence of both parties that respondent and his family members went to her paternal home to bring her back but she refused. So it is proved that appellant wife had left the matrimonial house on 16.5.2015. Thus, she withdraw from the Society the respondent husband on 16.5.2015. Thus, the burden of proof lies on the appellant wife to show the excuse for withdrawal from the society the respondent husband. 13. Appellant deposed in her statement that behaviour of husband and his family members was not proper ever since first Bidai (farewell). It is also alleged by appellant wife that husband and his family members demanded a car for which she was subjected to continuous domestic violence. Respondent husband and his family members also tortured her and used to say that he hit her and wanted to drive her away. Husband told her and her father that he is Professor in Medical College but he was not a Professor. Respondent husband and his family members also tortured her and used to say that he hit her and wanted to drive her away. Husband told her and her father that he is Professor in Medical College but he was not a Professor. Due to behaviour of husband and his family, appellant wife left her matrimonial home. Other family members of the respondent husband detained her in a room and did not provide her food. They used to burn her through incense stick, hot tea etc. These allegations seems to be exaggerated and not reliable. She filed the application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Datia after getting summons in the present case. 14. The respondent and his witnesses, in their examination as well as cross-examination, has specifically denied the suggestion that he has ever behaved with cruelty with the appellant. 15. She deposed in her cross-examination that she was not satisfied with her marriage and her husband during first Vidai. Respondent husband used to beat her and demanded car at first Vidai. But she did not lodge complaint or FIR against her husband or family members. Again she admitted that she came her matrimonial home happily at first Vidai. So it seems that her evidence is self contradictory. Her father Deshraj Sahu admitted that he, his son and other relatives went to bring appellant from her matrimonial home, they came back to bring appellant happily from her matrimonial home. He send appellant her matrimonial home with happily at first Vidai. He brought appellant from her matrimonial home happily at first Vidai. The relations with respondent and his family were cordial at that time. There was no dispute. So it is not established that respondent husband or his family members used to beat appellant and demand Car at first Vidai. Appellant did not complain that respondent's family members used to burn her through incense-stick and hot tea. Hence, allegation of cruelty was not proved. 16. Thus, on appreciation of evidence, it would appear that the appellant/wife has failed to establish that there was reasonable excuse for her to withdraw from society of his husband/respondent Manoj Sahu. Hence, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act granted by the impugned judgment cannot be faulted and the same calls for no interference. 17. Hence, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act granted by the impugned judgment cannot be faulted and the same calls for no interference. 17. Therefore, the appeal has no merit and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The parties shall however bear their own costs.