JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 245A/2016, the appellant-husband has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 2. It is not in dispute that the appellant and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 05.06.2009, however they are living separately from the year 2012-2013. They have a daughter named Gunjan @ Garima aged about 3 years. 3. The case of the appellant-husband is that, he lived harmoniously with his wife for about six months after their marriage. Thereafter, on several occasions the respondent-wife went to her maternal house. She lived there for long span of time and returned to her matrimonial house with reluctance. She is a degree holder in Master of Business Administration and used to misbehave with the appellant and his parents. After quarreling with them, she left her matrimonial house and started residing with her parents. After sometime, she gave birth to a daughter. When the appellant went there, she neither met him nor allowed him to meet his daughter. She also refused to return to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, she was willing to reside with the appellant subject to certain conditions which were fulfilled by the appellant. Even then, later she refused to live with him. Thus, a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by him before the Family Court, Jabalpur for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. The respondent-wife denied all the allegations and contended that she was always ready to performed her matrimonial duties. But the appellant and his parents harassed her. They demanded Rs. One Lakh cash and a car as dowry from her parents. Thereafter, appellant beat her on several occasion. In a meeting with their family, the appellant gave in writing that in future he will not beat the respondent. Even then, he had not changed his cruel behaviour towards her. Since then, she is living separately. Therefore, she has prayed to dismiss this appeal. 5. Learned trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant solely on the ground that other case under Domestic Violence Act is pending against the appellant-husband, hence, decree for restitution of conjugal right cannot be passed in favour of the appellant-husband. 6. Since then, she is living separately. Therefore, she has prayed to dismiss this appeal. 5. Learned trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant solely on the ground that other case under Domestic Violence Act is pending against the appellant-husband, hence, decree for restitution of conjugal right cannot be passed in favour of the appellant-husband. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the record. 7. After considering the entire evidence put-forth by both the parties, it is apparent that after marriage, when the respondent resided with the appellant, she had visited several places readily at her own accord. During that period, she never complained against her husband. The appellant also celebrated her birthday. Sometimes, some issues arise between married couples due to various reasons such as difference of opinion, mindset, family background, etc. Married life takes some time to be settled by mutual understanding and adjustment. 8. After marriage, a spouse is entitled to cohabitation and society of the other spouse and where one spouse abandon the other without reasonable excuse, the party has a right for restitution of conjugal rights. 9. The initial onus of proving that the respondent has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the appellant, must obviously rest on the appellant. The mere circumstance that the wife’s allegation of cruelty in defence in any such case is not proved, would not displace that onus. However, the onus of proving reasonable excuse must rest on the respondent. 10. Similarly, the more recent and acceptable view seems to be that “just cause” must be “grave and weighty” or as it is sometimes said “grave and convincing” and that it may be distinct from a matrimonial offence. It may be distinct from cruelty to the extent that it falls short of or is less than legal cruelty but nonetheless, it is for the husband to satisfy the Court that if she returned to him, he would behave with conjugal kindness and therefore, was a defence to the husband’s petition for restitution. Because the fundamental rule of matrimonial law is that one spouse is entitled to the society and comfort-consortium of the other spouse. 11. Question for determination is, “whether the relationship exists and to find out whether the case is fit for granting decree for restitution of conjugal rights.” 12. Because the fundamental rule of matrimonial law is that one spouse is entitled to the society and comfort-consortium of the other spouse. 11. Question for determination is, “whether the relationship exists and to find out whether the case is fit for granting decree for restitution of conjugal rights.” 12. In this regard, it is very clear that if the wife was ill treated and beaten by the relatives of her husband because she could not bring dowry from her parents, then she had a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the matrimonial home. When evidence stands on oath versus oath, the court is to appreciate the same by preponderance of probability. Even then, restitution of conjugal rights would be refused if the husband is guilty of mental cruelty. It is not necessary that there should be a physical assault, violence or torture. 13. Sporadic incidents of ill-treatment by husband or his relatives do not attract definition of cruelty as these were aimed at pressuring wife for divorce and not aimed at pressuring her to satisfy demand of dowry. There may be cases where the wife is of low tolerance to the usual domestic quarrel. In such circumstances, there is possibility that false complaint has been made by the wife. [See : Sarala Prabhakar vs. State of Maharashtra, 1990 Cr.LJ 407 and G.V.Siddarmesh vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152 ]. 14. It is evident from the document (Ex. D 1) executed by the appellant that he confessed to have beaten his wife earlier. He has tried to take his wife to reside with him. The conduct of respondent-wife shows that she is not inclined to reside with her husband. There is no evidence to show that after executing the letter Ex. D/1, appellant embarrassed his wife. 15. In case of Baburao vs. Sushila Bai reported in 1963 MPLJ 426 , a Single Bench of this Court has observed as under : “The wording of Section 9(1) of the Act makes it clear that even when the conditions stated in that provision are satisfied, it is in the discretion of the court whether or not to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The discretion vested in court has to be exercised with caution and after due deliberation. The discretion vested in court has to be exercised with caution and after due deliberation. The court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties to judge whether the petitioner deserves to get the relief and whether such relief is not unreasonable in the particular case against the respondent.” 16. In case of Shyamlal vs. Smt. Saraswati Bai, reported in 1967 MPLJ 154 , the Division Bench of this Court has held as under : “10. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has to be read with Section 23. According to these sections, the legal ground for refusing to grant relief may consist of any of the grounds on which the respondent could have asked for a decree for judicial separation or for a nullity of marriage or for divorce (Section 9(2)), and any conduct on the part of the petitioner or fact tantamount to the petitioner taking advantage of his own wrong for the purpose of such relief as mentioned in Section 23. Again, no relief can be granted to the petitioner if the respondent had reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the petitioner. 11. It is also to be borne in mind that 'just cause' must be grave and weighty, or as it is sometimes said, "grave" and "convincing". It is also pertinent to note that the standard of proof in matrimonial offences is that a fact on which the relief is sought must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. 12. ……………... What amounts to "legal cruelty" has to be considered by keeping in view the physical and mental condition of the parties, their age, environments, standard of culture and status in life.” 17. The meaning, concept and interpretation of relationships have undergone change in the so called wave of modernisation. However, a wife without lawful cause cannot cease to cohabit with her husband of his marital duties. Moreover, it is essential to the success of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights that the appellant should have a sincere desire for a real restitution of their rights with a corresponding willingness to render them to the other spouse. 18. In the present case, in our considered opinion, this couple can restart their married life. They have a daughter aged 3 years. She is deprived of father’s love, care and affection. They can change their behaviour and should respect each other. 18. In the present case, in our considered opinion, this couple can restart their married life. They have a daughter aged 3 years. She is deprived of father’s love, care and affection. They can change their behaviour and should respect each other. The appellant-husband has himself stopped the cruel treatment towards his wife. Due the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to dismiss the prayer of the appellant. 19. Hence, on the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal. The judgment and decree of the lower Court are set aside and instead, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is passed in favour of the appellant-husband. Respondent-wife is hereby directed to cohabit with the appellant-husband. 20. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.