JUDGMENT : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. The appellant (wife) has suffered a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. We have asked learned counsel for the appellant repeatedly as to what are the appellant’s arguments to attack the reasons given by the learned Judge, Family Court. Learned counsel states that since no reasons are given in the judgment, in absence of any reason he can only raise the argument that no reasons are given. 3. We have told learned counsel for the appellant that if reasons can be ascertained, in the absence of attacking then the appeal would have to fail and therefore counsel should make an attempt to attack the reasons given by the learned Judge, Family court. Learned counsel insists that the judgment is without any reason. 4. In the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent pleaded that marriage between the parties as per Hindu customs was solemnized in Jodhpur on 26.11.2004. For 18 months appellant lived with him peacefully but suddenly he started seeing change in her behaviour. He was residing in a joint family. The appellant started insisting that he should separate from his family members but he refused. On 11.05.2006 Anu, a cousin of the appellant came to their matrimonial house in Udaipur and she left for Jodhpur with her and he dropped both at the bus stand. Inspite of invitation extended to attend the marriage of his younger brother Rohit, the appellant and her family members did not attend the marriage. When information was received by him and his parents that the appellant had given birth to a child, they went to their parental house on 16.07.2006 requesting her to come to the matrimonial house for a religious ceremony to be performed, but the appellant refused on the ground that her father was unwell. The attempts made by his parents for reconciliation for which they traveled from Udaipur to Jodhpur was failed. 5. The appellant denied the assertion and pleaded that cause for her to leave her matrimonial house was constant bickering and a dowry demand in sum of Rs. 50,000/-. 6. The attempts made by his parents for reconciliation for which they traveled from Udaipur to Jodhpur was failed. 5. The appellant denied the assertion and pleaded that cause for her to leave her matrimonial house was constant bickering and a dowry demand in sum of Rs. 50,000/-. 6. Granting relief to the respondent, the learned Family Court has highlighted the fact that on 11.05.2006 when Anu the cousin of the appellant came to her matrimonial house to take her to her parents house, the respondent allowed her to leave when his consent proved by the fact that he dropped the appellant and Anu at the Bus stop in Udaipur wherefrom they could proceed to Jodhpur. With reference to Ex.1 being the telephone bill, Ex.2 and Ex.3 being courier receipts and Ex.4 and Ex.5 being Bus tickets the learned Family Judge has held that the respondent could prove that his family had traveled from Udaipur to Jodhpur to attempt a reconciliation as claimed in the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The reasons of the learned Family Court are in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the impugned decision. 7. It is thus not a case where the decision gives no reason. Since we had repeatedly called upon the appellant to question the reasons given by the learned Judge and the answer was that it is a case of no reason, we are left with no argument of the appellant to deal with qua the findings given in the impugned judgment against the appellant. In absence of attacking the reasons given in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the impugned judgment, the appeal would have to fail. 8. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.