JUDGMENT : G. A. SANAP, J. The appellant-original petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 1-10-2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Amravati in Special Marriage Petition No. 6/2017, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition seeking the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :— The Special Marriage Petition was filed under section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. It is the case of the appellant that he and respondent got married on 4-11-2016. The marriage was registered. It is alleged that one day prior to the reception of their marriage one Prakash David Ghule had made a telephone call to the appellant and informed him that respondent was already married with him. The appellant did not believe it and therefore, ignored the same. After marriage, the appellant and respondent resided at Amravati for few days and afterwards shifted to Pune. The appellant is doing job at Pune. The respondent is doing job at Aurangabad. It is alleged that after few months of the marriage, the appellant noticed change in the behaviour of the respondent. The respondent would not stay at home even on Sunday and other Government holidays. The respondent used to abuse the appellant in filthy language. Since January, 2017 the respondent stopped maintaining any relations with the appellant as husband. She would always remain busy on her mobile talking with other persons. The appellant questioned the respondent about it. The respondent at that time told him that she had already performed marriage with Prakash David Ghule and therefore, could not live without the company of Prakash. The appellant forgave the respondent. He gave her understanding to lead happy married life with him. However, there was no change in her attitude. On 10-4-2017, in the night on the pretext of withdrawing money from ATM Centre, the respondent left his house. He lodged the report with Frezarpura Police Station, Amravati. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent without any reasonable excuse withdrawn from his society. He is willing to cohabit and maintain marital tie with the respondent. He therefore, prayed for the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 3. The respondent opposed the petition vide reply at Ex.15. The respondent denied the material allegations made in the complaint. The respondent has admitted the factum of marriage. He is willing to cohabit and maintain marital tie with the respondent. He therefore, prayed for the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 3. The respondent opposed the petition vide reply at Ex.15. The respondent denied the material allegations made in the complaint. The respondent has admitted the factum of marriage. It is contended that the appellant and the respondent being from paramedical faculty, their parents settled their marriage. After the marriage, according to the respondent, the conduct and behaviour of the appellant was not proper. After the marriage, the appellant shifted to Aurangabad where the respondent has been doing service. The appellant would snatch the salary from her and quarrel with her for money. The appellant was not interested to maintain any kind of relations with the respondent. The appellant mentally and physically harassed the respondent. The respondent tried to convince him however, the appellant refused to maintain any relations with her and left her company without sufficient cause and reason. Initially she had tolerated it, however, when the appellant started doubting her chastity the things went beyond control. The appellant lodged false complaint against the respondent and her family members. The respondent contended that with this kind of cantankerous behaviour of the appellant, it would be very difficult for her to rejoin the company of the appellant. 4. In the trial Court, the appellant examined himself as a sole witness. The respondent filed the pursis and declared that she would not adduce the evidence. The learned District Judge on the basis of certain facts brought on record in the evidence of the appellant came to the conclusion that no case was made out for granting the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and as such, the petition was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, the appellant has come in appeal before this Court. Despite service of the notice of the appeal, the respondent has failed to appear before this Court. 6. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellant, we have gone through the record and proceedings. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in the absence of the evidence in rebuttal by the respondent, the learned District Judge ought to have accepted the claim of the appellant. 6. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the appellant, we have gone through the record and proceedings. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in the absence of the evidence in rebuttal by the respondent, the learned District Judge ought to have accepted the claim of the appellant. In the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant, the petition filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights would speak about the bona fides of the appellant. He submitted that the learned District Judge has failed to consider the evidence adduced by the appellant in proper perspective and has come to a wrong conclusion. 7. At the out set, it would be necessary to make a note of un-disputed facts having bearing with the merits of the appeal. The respondent has filed petition for divorce under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 in the Family Court at Jalna on 17-6-2021. The appellant had filed the petition in the District Court Amravati for restitution of conjugal rights on 22-4-2017. In the petition, he has categorically stated about the extra marital relations of the respondent with one Prakash Ghule. It is further undisputed that the appellant has filed Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 373/2017 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati on 24-4-2017 against the respondent, her family members and one Prakash Devid Ghule under sections 493, 495, 496, 497 and 498 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In this complaint, the appellant has categorically stated about the extra marital relations of the respondent with Prakash Ghule. In our opinion, while deciding the appeal, the aforesaid admitted facts would assume significance. 8. Perusal of the record would show that respondent has filed petition in the Family Court at Jalna seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. In her written statement, in the petition filed by the appellant for restitution of the conjugal rights, she has categorically stated that she was harassed and tortured by the appellant for money. She has stated that the appellant raised doubt about her character and chastity. The learned District Judge after considering the evidence and provisions of section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 came to the conclusion that the case sought to be placed on record in the evidence by the appellant was not sufficient to grant the decree. She has stated that the appellant raised doubt about her character and chastity. The learned District Judge after considering the evidence and provisions of section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 came to the conclusion that the case sought to be placed on record in the evidence by the appellant was not sufficient to grant the decree. It is seen on the perusal of the evidence and particularly the cross-examination of the appellant that within two days of filing of the petition, he filed the criminal complaint against respondent, her family members and Prakash Ghule. In his cross-examination on being questioned about it, he admitted that in order to bring on record the true facts he has filed the said complaint. He has denied the suggestion that he has made false allegations against the respondent in the criminal case. In this case, it has been proved that the appellant and the respondent are blaming each other. The appellant has made serious allegations of maintaining extra marital relations by the respondent with Prakash Ghule in the criminal complaint. He has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the allegations. The appellant has produced on record the transcript of the recorded telephonic conversations between him and Prakash Ghule. However, same has not been proved. It is therefore, seen on the basis of the record that the appellant has made self contradictory and inconsistent statement on the same point. 9. In this background, it would be necessary to consider the scope of provisions of section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. For the purpose of convenience, it would be necessary to reproduce the same. It reads thus :— “When either the husband or wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, either wife or husband may apply, by petition to District Court or the High Court for the restitution of conjugal rights and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of 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.” 10. The perusal of the provision would show that before granting the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the Court must be satisfied of the truth of the statements made in the petition that either the husband or wife has, without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the other. The perusal of the provision would show that before granting the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the Court must be satisfied of the truth of the statements made in the petition that either the husband or wife has, without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the other. In other words, if the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable excuse to withdraw either by the husband or wife from the society of other then, it would be very difficult for the Court to record satisfaction with regard to the truth of the statement made in the petition. In the written statement, the respondent has specifically stated her defence. The appellant after filing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights stating that despite knowing the true state of affairs, he forgave the respondent and wanted to establish conjugal rights with her. This statement would have been believed, if he had not filed any other proceeding which would directly contradict his statement in the Court. The criminal complaint filed as stated aforesaid against the respondent, relatives and one Prakash Ghule, in our opinion would cause a serious dent to the truthfulness and veracity of the evidence of the appellant. It has been proved that the appellant has not only raised the doubt about the chastity of the respondent but also placed the same on record, in black and white, in the form of the criminal complaint. The perusal of the judgment of the District Judge would show that the learned Judge has taken all the aspects into consideration and based on the same, rejected the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 11. On undertaking the exercise of fresh appreciation of evidence, we do not find any merit and substance in the case of the appellant. In view of the proved facts, we are convinced that dent has been caused to the core of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. In the backdrop of the evidence on record, it is not possible to accept the case of the appellant that without any reasonable excuse the respondent has withdrawn from his company. 12. In our view, there is no substance in the appeal. No interference is warranted in the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Amravati. 13. In the backdrop of the evidence on record, it is not possible to accept the case of the appellant that without any reasonable excuse the respondent has withdrawn from his company. 12. In our view, there is no substance in the appeal. No interference is warranted in the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Amravati. 13. In view of the above, we are not prepared to accept the submissions’ advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order :— ORDER (i) The First Appeal is dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs.