JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Heard Mr. U.C. Rabha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The appellant is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 26.09.2017 passed by the Family Court-1, Kamrup, in F.C.(Civil) Case No.746/2011. The Court below through the said judgment has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking for a judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. The brief facts are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 09.05.2007 and they have two children from the said marriage. According to the appellant, since the respondent had left the appellant and gone to her parental home on 20.05.2011 and had not chosen to return and continue the conjugal relations with the appellant, he had filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court below seeking restitution of the conjugal rights. The respondent having appeared had filed the written statement disputing the case as put forth by the appellant and providing justification for staying away from the appellant. The Court below in that background had framed three issues for its consideration and proceeded to consider the matter on merits. 4. In an attempt to discharge the burden caste on the appellant, the appellant had examined himself as PW-1 and examined two witnesses, namely, Jitendra Nath Deka and Shri Tapan Choudhury as PW-2 and PW-3, respectively. The respondent herein had examined herself as DW-1. The Court below on analysing the evidence available was of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment passed by the Court below would contend that the Court below had not appropriately considered the evidence available on record. It is his case that in addition to the evidence tendered by the appellant as PW-1, the evidence as tendered through PW-2, namely, Shri Jitendra Nath Deka, is of a person of respectable nature in the area. It is his case that in addition to the evidence tendered by the appellant as PW-1, the evidence as tendered through PW-2, namely, Shri Jitendra Nath Deka, is of a person of respectable nature in the area. In that regard, it is contended that the said witness had stated with regard to the manner in which the respondent had kept away from the company of the appellant and such evidence ought to have been taken note by the Court below. It is also his case that the evidence of PW-3, a colleague of the appellant, is to the same effect and in such circumstance, when it was stated that the respondent without cause had gone to her parental home and was also forcing the appellant to reside in the house of her parents, the Court below ought to have taken note of this aspect and the decree ought to have been granted so that the respondent can discharge her marital obligations in the matrimonial home. Hence, he contends that the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and on allowing the appeal, the respondent be directed to join the company of the appellant and the matrimonial life. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would, on the other hand, seek to contend that the Court below on taking note of the evidence available on record, more particularly, the evidence of the respondent, has arrived at the conclusion that the respondent had justification to stay away from the appellant. It is pointed out that the appellant had failed to discharge his marital obligation as her husband and had even failed to maintain the respondent and the children. In that regard, it is contended that the respondent had also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was registered in F.C.(Crl.) Case No.310/2012, wherein also the Court below having taken note of the evidence has arrived at the conclusion that keeping in view the conduct of the appellant, the respondent was justified in not joining the appellant in the matrimonial home. In that light, when the Court below has found justification to grant the maintenance by approving the action of the respondent in staying away, a different conclusion in any event cannot be reached in a proceeding under Section 9 and, therefore, it is contended that the Court below was justified and the judgment does not call for interference. 7. In the above background, we have taken note of the nature of the contention put forth by the parties before the Court below. The case of the appellant is that the respondent had without justification gone back to her parents and the case as put forth by the appellant is also that the respondent and her parents had expected the appellant to reside in their house as ‘Ghar Jamai’. In that light, it is contended that since the appellant had resisted the same as he had an obligation to look after his family including his sisters, the respondent instead of understanding the sentiment in that regard has gone to her parents’ house by disturbing the marital life. To contend that the appellant had established this aspect before the Court below, reliance is sought to be placed on the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, namely, Jitendra Nath Deka and Tapan Choudhury, respectively. In that regard we notice that the evidence as tendered by the said witnesses is to the same effect as had been stated by the appellant as PW-1. 8. Per contra, the respondent in her evidence had stated with regard to the sufferings she had undergone from the beginning of the marital life including the torture she had suffered at the ends of the appellant and his four unmarried sisters. In that regard, she has stated that she was forced to flee from the residence of the appellant to save herself from the cruel and arrogant behaviour of the appellant. 9. In the background of what has been considered in the said proceedings based on the said evidence, in the instant facts what would also be of relevance is the proceedings initiated by the respondent herein under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment dated 26.09.2017 passed therein has attained finality. 9. In the background of what has been considered in the said proceedings based on the said evidence, in the instant facts what would also be of relevance is the proceedings initiated by the respondent herein under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment dated 26.09.2017 passed therein has attained finality. In the said proceeding also while putting forth the justification of the respondent herein to stay away and in that context to seek for maintenance, the respondent herein in her evidence has referred to the conduct of the appellant in the manner the respondent and the children were treated. She has also stated with regard to the illegal demands that were made and the complaint that had been lodged by her in Panbazar Police Station. Further, she has also referred to the appellant raising doubts with regard to the paternity of the younger child and attempting to take steps to conduct DNA test. The said aspects were put forth to indicate the conduct of the appellant in treating the respondent, which resulted in the respondent taking shelter in her parental home. The fact that the respondent was also running music classes as she had completed her degree in B. Music, is also referred to and in that light it was contended that the appellant was seeking to curtail the said activity of the respondent by forcing her in that regard. 10. Therefore, in that circumstance, when the Court below has accepted the evidence in the said proceeding under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and granted the maintenance by holding that there was sufficient cause for the respondent to stay away from the company of the appellant, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, a different consideration in any event cannot be made in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein the respondent herein has put forth similar contentions to resist the grant of decree in that regard. 11. 11. Therefore, in that background, a perusal of the judgment dated 26.09.2017 passed in F.C.(Civil) Case No.746/2011 would indicate that the Court below on analysing the evidence available before it has arrived at its conclusion and in that circumstance, when we do not find any error committed by the Court below and when no evidence available on record has been ignored by it, the judgment impugned herein does not call for interference. 12. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. 13. Registry will send back the records.