JUDGMENT : NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed assailing the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad in M.C.No.49 of 2013. 2. The Petition before the Family Court was filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights which was dismissed. This appeal is therefore filed by the husband. 3. It is stated in the petition filed before the Family Court that the respondent was given in marriage to the petitioner on 27.04.2001 at Linganakoppa village and from the marriage the respondent has given birth to two children. It is stated that the respondent had a habit of going to her parents’ house without informing the appellant and that she was ill-treating the appellant. Appellant claimed that he obtained a transfer of his job to Linganakoppa village and took a rented house at Dharwad. He stated that since his parents were visiting him at his Dharwad house, his wife vacated Dharwad house and settled at Davanagere. The appellant was transferred to Gadag and he requested his wife to join him at Gadag along with children. The wife refused to join him at Gadag and she stayed in Davanagere only. 4. The appellant contended that he made several attempts to bring back his wife and children and instead of joining him she filed a Criminal Miscellaneous No.14 of 2012 before the Family Court at Davanagere seeking maintenance. The Court at Davanagere granted maintenance. The appellant caused notice through his Advocate on 28.01.2013 calling upon his wife to join him and assured to take good care of her and the children. 5. The respondent-wife appeared and claimed that the appellant was addicted to alcohol and he used to spend all money for his bad habits and was not taking care of their children. She claimed that she was educating the children by taking loan from her relatives. She alleged that the appellant has filed this petition only to avoid the payment of maintenance. 6. The appellant examined himself as P.W.-1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.-2 and 3 and he marked Ex.P.1 to 7, while respondent was examined as R.W.-1 and two witnesses were examined as R.W.2 and 3 and she marked Ex.R.1 and 2. 7. 6. The appellant examined himself as P.W.-1 and two other witnesses were examined as P.W.-2 and 3 and he marked Ex.P.1 to 7, while respondent was examined as R.W.-1 and two witnesses were examined as R.W.2 and 3 and she marked Ex.R.1 and 2. 7. The Family Court by its Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2015, dismissed the petition and held that the appellant was not entitled for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, appellant filed this statutory appeal before this Court. 8. The notice of this appeal was sent to the respondent-wife and the same was served. The respondent has consistently not appeared before the Court. On 02.12.2019, in order to give an opportunity, the case was again listed on 16.12.2019. Even on 16.12.2019, respondent-wife has not appeared. Therefore, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 9. The evidence on record discloses that the appellant was a Government servant. The evidence of P.W.2 discloses that he and the appellant were from the same village and he stated that after the marriage of the respondent with appellant, they were residing at Dharwad. He also claimed that he used to intervene whenever a dispute arose between the appellant and respondent. He also deposed that the respondent was residing at Davanagere and that when the appellant was working at Davanagere both of them were residing in same house. P.W.-3 is also a resident of the same village from where the appellant hails. His evidence may not be relevant as he has not disclosed much about the issues between the appellant and respondent. 10. On the other hand, the respondent was examined, wherein she claimed that the appellant was employed at Gadag and the parents of the appellant were aged. She also accepted that the appellant was drawing salary of Rs.8,000/-to Rs.10,000/-per month and he was only earning member in the family. She accepted that she had a blissful marital life till the 2nd child was born. She accepted that the appellant was procuring food articles and ration, but was refusing to provide clothing and paying fees to the school. She admitted that she had no relatives in Davanagere and also that the appellant did not have any relatives. She also accepted that the appellant had no interest in Davanagere. She accepted that the appellant was procuring food articles and ration, but was refusing to provide clothing and paying fees to the school. She admitted that she had no relatives in Davanagere and also that the appellant did not have any relatives. She also accepted that the appellant had no interest in Davanagere. She categorically stated that she would not join the appellant if the appellant made a house in either Davanagere or Gadag. She also refused to join the appellant even when an offer was made in the Court by the appellant. She claimed that she was staying away from the appellant only to ensure that her children were educated. She alleged that she was doing household works in others house and earned livelihood and was not prepared to go back to Dharwad or Gadag to stay with the appellant. 11. R.W.2 is the father of the respondent and he claimed that the appellant’s financial position is satisfactory and also acknowledged that the appellant needed the respondent. He also indicated that, it is better for both appellant and respondent if they lived together. R.W.-2 accepted that the appellant has enormous love and affection towards his children. R.W.-2 claimed that he is not willing to send his daughter to the matrimonial home of the appellant. He also accepted that the appellant has no other illicit relationship with any other woman. 12. R.W.-3 is a relative of both the appellant and respondent and he accepted that the appellant was earning sufficiently. He admitted that he and his wife had gone to Davanagere to advice the respondent. 13. It is seen from Ex.P.5 that the appellant caused a notice calling upon the respondent to restore the matrimonial obligations. 14. It is evident from the oral evidence that the respondent for reasons unknown is staying away from the appellant. The appellant is employed with the Government and there is sufficient evidence to show that the respondent has stonewalled the efforts of the appellant to bring back the respondent into matrimonial home. The objection filed by the respondent before the Court below does not show any reasonable cause for the respondent to stay away from the appellant. The only reasonable cause that the respondent attempted to portray before the Court below was that the appellant was a drunkard and was not willing to take care of the family properly. The objection filed by the respondent before the Court below does not show any reasonable cause for the respondent to stay away from the appellant. The only reasonable cause that the respondent attempted to portray before the Court below was that the appellant was a drunkard and was not willing to take care of the family properly. This does not find favour from the oral evidence, wherein it is claimed that the appellant had indeed made a house in Dharwad, but the respondent refused to go to Dharwad, but preferred to stay at Davanagere on assumption that Davanagere had better education facility for her children. The respondent has claimed that she is doing household works in others house to earn livelihood. Dharwad city is also an education hub and equally good on par with Davanagere. Therefore, Respondent’s view that her children education at Davanagere is good is only an excuse. Though the appellant has stated in very many terms that he is willing to accept the respondent and take care of the family, respondent has stayed away from the appellant. We do not find the contention of the respondent to be reasonable and she is not justified in staying away from the respondent more so in view of the fact that the respondent has two children to look after and appellant has remained unmarried and he is denied the benefit of family life. It is in the interest of the minor children and also in the interest of maintaining the institution of marriage that we feel it appropriate to pass a decree of restitution of conjugal rights by setting aside the Judgment of the Family Court and pass the following : ORDER This Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed and respondent is directed to join the appellant at his matrimonial home along with children within a period of two months from the date of this order, failing which, the appellant is at liberty to take steps that are provided under law for restitution of conjugal rights. This Miscellaneous First appeal is disposed of.