JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. Instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 5/07/2019 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in HMA No. 364/2016 whereby a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was passed in favour of the husband/respondent. Instant appeal is by the wife against such order of restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the parties were married on 1/12/2015. Thereafter, the wife joined the company of husband and it was alleged that during such living together he suffered a fracture but that was being sarcastically commented by the in-laws. It is further stated that the wife without any rhyme or reason used to go away and whenever the husband used to come back from office, he would find the lock on the door. It is further alleged that the allegation of character assassination was also made that he has relation with one Baljeet Bhoumik who is elder sister-in-law and she resides at Noida and not at Durg. It is stated that on 23/05/2016 when the husband came back he saw the wife was packing her garments and when he tried to make her understand, father of the wife Gopal Chandra who was there started assaulting the husband. Thereafter, the wife went away alongwith her father. Subsequently, he tried to bring her back on several occasion but she did not return and as such an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed. 3. Per contra, the wife has contended that because of the ill treatment meted out, she was forced to leave the house. She further stated that a demand of Rs.3,50,000/- was made from her father and while she was ailing she was not looked after, as such under those circumstances she was taken away by her father. She further stated that for such demand a report under Section 498-A and 294 IPC was also made against the husband. 4. The learned family court after framing of the issues and evaluating the evidence came to a conclusion that the wife is living separately without any lawful reason and has passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, this appeal by the wife. 5. 4. The learned family court after framing of the issues and evaluating the evidence came to a conclusion that the wife is living separately without any lawful reason and has passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, this appeal by the wife. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the husband has stated that the wife left him without any reason but this fact has not been proved, on the contrary it has come on record that she was subjected to torture, therefore she was forced to leave the house. He would further submit that a report was also made for which offence was registered under Section 498-A and 294 of IPC. He would submit that since wife was treated with cruelty, as such she forcefully took shelter at her parental place and lawful reason exist to stay separate. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the learned family court is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, Shri Sourabh Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the evidence in this case would show that without any lawful reason the wife was living separately at her parental place. He would further submit that during the course of trial certified copy of the judgment which is placed on record in respect of the criminal case under Section 498-A and 294 of IPC it would show that the said report was only made when application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the husband. He would further submit that there is nothing on record to substantiate the fact that the wife had a lawful reason to stay separate, therefore the judgment and decree of the court below is well merited which do not call for any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the evidence and the record. 8. The husband who examined himself as PW-1 has stated that he was married to the appellant and after she joined the company she used to abuse him. He further submitted that during such matrimonial continuity, he suffered an accident and suffered fracture but it was being sarcastically commented by the mother and father of the wife. 8. The husband who examined himself as PW-1 has stated that he was married to the appellant and after she joined the company she used to abuse him. He further submitted that during such matrimonial continuity, he suffered an accident and suffered fracture but it was being sarcastically commented by the mother and father of the wife. It is further stated that after the husband used to go to the office the wife without any information frequently used to go to Raipur to her parental place and used to go out with the neighbours and whenever he used to come back from office he could discover the lock on the main door. He has further stated that his brother Goutam Kumar Bhoumik resides at Noida and allegation of illicit relation was made with his elder sister-in-law on husband. Describing an incident it is stated that on 23/05/2016 when he came back he saw that his wife was packing her garments and other house hold articles. Having asked, she stated that she is leaving the house. It is further deposed that he tried to make her understand but her father who was present namely Gopal Chandra Sheel assaulted him and forcefully took her away. 9. Husband further stated that thereafter on 3/07/2016 he tried to take back his wife but eventually all efforts failed and from 23/05/2016 she is living separately. In cross-examination of the witness though different questions have been asked but the reason for leaving the matrimonial home remains un-rebutted. The other witnesses Prasoon Kumar Rai (PW- 2), Pranav Sharma (PW-3) and Smt. Laxmi Yadav (PW-4) they have also deposed similar facts that on 23/05/2016 after quarrel the wife left the house. The witnesses further have stated that the husband advised the wife not to visit their neighbour one Soma Banerjee and she did not hear to it and dispute aggravated. On overall assessment of the evidence of the witnesses would show that no reasons have been assigned or slated to appreciate the fact that why the wife was living separately. On the contrary, the statement of the wife Smt. Madhumita Bhaumik (DW-1) and her father Gopal Chandra Sheel (DW-2) would show that they tried to establish that a demand was made by the husband to liquidate the dues for which report was made of demand of dowry. On the contrary, the statement of the wife Smt. Madhumita Bhaumik (DW-1) and her father Gopal Chandra Sheel (DW-2) would show that they tried to establish that a demand was made by the husband to liquidate the dues for which report was made of demand of dowry. In respect of said report after statement of parties charge sheet was filed and trial took place. A certified copy of the judgment dated 3/02/2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Case No.11175/2016 is placed on record. At para 23 of the said judgment the court appreciated the evidence of Gopal Chandra Sheel wherein he admitted that report under Section 498-A IPC was filed because they received the notice of application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the husband. Perusal of the certified copy of the judgment would show that the court appreciated the entire evidence on merits and came to a conclusion and acquitted the respondent/husband which lead to show that no demand was ever made by husband which the wife wanted to justify of her living separate. Statement of the wife too do not support the fact as to what is the reason for which she is living separate. Though the allegation of demand of dowry has been made but that has been negated after a trial by the learned magistrate. Consequently, the defence which was projected as against Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act appears to be falsified. 10. Under the circumstances, after evaluating all the facts and evidence, we are of the view that the judgment and decree dated 5/07/2019 passed by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur in HMA No. 364/2016 for restitution of conjugal rights do not require any interference. 11. Accordingly, appeal sans merit and is dismissed.