JUDGMENT : N.K. CHANDRAVANSHI, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/wife against judgment and decree dated 30-4-2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (CG) in Civil Suit No. 67A/2017 whereby civil suit filed by the appellant/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1955’) for restitution of conjugal rights, was allowed in favour of the respondent/husband. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that appellant wife and respondent husband were married on 12-12-2015. After 1½ month of marriage, wife started quarreling on petty issues and humiliating parents of husband. She did not take any interest in domestic works. Parents of husband are old aged persons suffering from various ailments. Mother of appellant is also suffering from paralysis, hence, she could not do her own works. Wife used to ask that she is not servant who would look after his parents and prepare food for them. On being explained, she threatened to implicate them in false case. Financial status of husband is not good, despite that on being demand made by the wife when husband could not provide her valuable articles, then she abused and insulted him and some times, assaulted also. When his elder brother who lived separate, came to his house to meet parents, wife did not respect him. It is further alleged that appellant wife always indulged in talking over mobile phone with some other person, despite explaining her, she did not change her conduct. Therefore, once husband had broken her mobile phone smashing on the ground. Hence, she started preparing to leave the in-laws house and on being explained by parents of husband, she insulted them. Wife had pressurized husband to give Rs. 5 lakhs for nursing training of her sister and due to quarrel made by her, husband somehow managed Rs. 1 lakh, despite that, she made false allegation on character of her father-in-law. Husband called parents of wife and other member of their society to explain her and in the month of February, 2017, her parents took her to her parental place. Thereafter despite being asked, she did not return and she put condition for the same that if husband brakes all relations from his parents and lives separately from them, then only she will join him. Thereafter despite being asked, she did not return and she put condition for the same that if husband brakes all relations from his parents and lives separately from them, then only she will join him. Social meeting was also convened in this regard, there also, wife refused to join his company until fulfillment of aforesaid condition. Due to such arrogance of wife, husband has been deprived of marital enjoyment, therefore, he filed the application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 before learned Family Court seeking relief of restitution of conjugal rights against wife. 3. The appellant/wife, in reply, denied all the allegations levelled against her and has pleaded that she was subjected to cruelty by husband on demand of dowry of motorcycle from her parents and her in-laws instigated the husband for the same. It is further stated that on 18-2-2017 her father-in-law had molested her, therefore on the same day, her father brought her to her parental place Pulgaon, Durg. On 24-8-2017, she had made a complaint in this regard to the Superintendent of Police, Durg. After few days, respondent was asked to bring her back, but he did not come. After 18-2-2017, respondent never came to bring her back, she has never refused to lead marital life with husband, however, she has stated him to improve his behaviour and she is scared due to obscene act of her father-in-law. Appellant/wife has further pleaded that if she goes to respondent’s home, her in-laws may harm her by creating problems. Therefore, application is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned Family Court, on the basis of averments made by both the parties in the pleadings, framed issues and after providing opportunity to lead evidence and after hearing the parties and considering the evidence available on record, has held that without any reasonable excuse, wife has deprived husband of marital enjoyment, hence it granted decree in favour of husband, therefore, this appeal has been preferred by appellant/wife. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1955, if one of the spouses without reasonable excuse withdraws the society of other spouse, then aggrieved party is entitled for decree of restitution of conjugal relation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1955, if one of the spouses without reasonable excuse withdraws the society of other spouse, then aggrieved party is entitled for decree of restitution of conjugal relation. In the instant case, it has been proved by the appellant/wife by adducing evidence that respondent/husband not only harassed her for demand of dowry, but also questioned her character, only because she used to talk over mobile phone. He would further submit that appellant/wife was also molested by her father-in-law on 18-2-2017. In this regard, meeting of members of society was also held wherein father of the respondent had apologized for his such obscene behaviour. In this regard, appellant had also made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg on 24-8-2017. Thus, there are reasonable excuses in favour of appellant/wife for not joining the company of respondent/husband, but learned Family Court without appreciating aforesaid evidence in true perspective has granted decree in favour of the respondent. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree is baseless, perverse and against the evidence available on record, which deserves to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the impugned judgment and decree has been passed on minute observation of the evidence adduced by the parties and the same is well merited, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, record of the Court below, and the documents annexed with the appeal. 8. To substantiate the pleading, respondent/husband Gajendra Chakradhari has examined himself as AW-1, his brother Kashiram Chakradhari as AW-2, one Chaitram Chakradhari as AW-3 and Bhogilal Chakradhari as AW-4, who is said to be Vice President of Durg Chakradhari Kumhar Samaj. On the other hand, in defence, the appellant/wife Smt. Kunti Chakradhari has examined herself as NAW-1, her maternal uncle Fenkuram Pandey as NAW-2 and Ravi Kumar Chakradhari as NAW-3. 9. Respondent/husband Gajendra alias Gajanand Chakradhari (AW-1) in his examination-in-chief, reiterated all the facts as have been pleaded by him in the application that, after 1½ months of marriage, wife started quarreling on petty issues. She did not do house hold works and never took care of his ailing parents, rather, she misbehaved with them and his elder brother also. 9. Respondent/husband Gajendra alias Gajanand Chakradhari (AW-1) in his examination-in-chief, reiterated all the facts as have been pleaded by him in the application that, after 1½ months of marriage, wife started quarreling on petty issues. She did not do house hold works and never took care of his ailing parents, rather, she misbehaved with them and his elder brother also. Even she also abused the respondent and some times assaulted also. He has further deposed that wife always used to talk over mobile phone with some other person. He has also deposed that for nursing training of younger sister of wife, on being demanded for Rs. 5 lakh, somehow he provided Rs. 1 lakh, then she quarelled, did not take meal for 2 days and on being explained by father of husband, she levelled false allegation of molestation against him. In this regard, social meeting was held. His statement is also supported by his brother Kashiram Chakradhari (AW-2), Chaitram Chakradhari (AW-3) and Bhogiram Chakradhari (AW-4). 10. Appellant Kunti Chakradhari (NAW-1) has stated in her deposition that after 2 months of marriage, her husband and his parents started torturing her by taunting that motorcycle was not given in the marriage, whereas in her pleading, she has stated that she was subjected to cruelty on demand of motorcycle. In her deposition, she has made allegation of aforesaid cruelty against her husband and her in-laws only, but in her cross-examination, she has also made allegation regarding demand of dowry against elder brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani), thus, there is material contradiction in respect of alleged harassment for demand of dowry. 11. It is also pertinent to mention here that appellant/wife herself has stated in her pleading and deposition that husband was already having motorcycle and her aforesaid statement i.e. harassment for demand of motorcycle, has not been supported by her witnesses namely Fenkuram Pandey (NAW-2) and Ravi Kumar Chakradhari (NAW-3), rather Fenkuram Pandey (NAW-2) has stated in his deposition that some dispute was raised by husband that the golden chain given in marriage was made of fake gold, but this fact has neither been pleaded nor stated by the appellant in her examination-in-chief. Fenkuram (NAW-2) has admitted in his cross-examination at Para 11 that respondent has never complained him about fake golden chain, he has also admitted in Para 12 that appellant wife has not told him about demand of dowry. Fenkuram (NAW-2) has admitted in his cross-examination at Para 11 that respondent has never complained him about fake golden chain, he has also admitted in Para 12 that appellant wife has not told him about demand of dowry. Therefore, only on the basis of statement of appellant/wife that she was subjected to cruelty for demand of motorcycle by her husband or her in-laws family, is not found to be trustworthy. 12. So far as alleged allegation against her character is concerned, respondent husband has not leveled any allegation in his pleading or deposition in respect of her character, rather he has only pleaded/stated that she remained busy for hours in talking over mobile phone with some other person. Such statement cannot be termed as allegation about character of wife. Fenkuram Pandey (NAW-2) has admitted in cross-examination in Para-18 that respondent/ husband had asked to explain the wife regarding her talks with some other person and to save his marital life, and on which, the wife had promised him and her mother not to repeat such mistake. Thus, submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent had levelled her character is not found to be correct, because if wife remains busy in talking with some other person for long time, who is not known to the husband or other family members, then it is quite common for respondent to object and restrain her to do it. Hence, we are not impressed with the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 13. Wife (NAW-1) has stated in her deposition that respondent/husband had admitted in front of her that he is having affair with some other girl, but neither husband has been asked any question in this regard in cross-examination nor her other witnesses have supported her that any such admission was made by husband in social meeting, therefore, only on the basis of solitary statement of appellant, it cannot be held that respondent had stated or admitted aforesaid fact. 14. Appellant/wife (NAW-1) has leveled allegation against her father-in-law that on 18-2-2017, when she was alone in the house, then her father-in-law caught hold her hands and molested her. 14. Appellant/wife (NAW-1) has leveled allegation against her father-in-law that on 18-2-2017, when she was alone in the house, then her father-in-law caught hold her hands and molested her. It is also evident from her statement that on the same day i.e. 18-2-2017 on being complaint made by her to her parents, her parents along with other members of society including Fenkuram Pandey (NAW-2), Ravi Kumar Chakradhari (NAW-3) had come to the house of husband and a meeting was held, wherein her father-in-law had admitted his mistake and had also apologized. This fact has also been supported by NAW-2 and NAW-3 but these witnesses have also stated in their deposition that father of respondent had denied allegations and had not apologized. Fenkuram Pandey (NAW-2) has also admitted in his cross-examination at Para 13 that father-in-law of appellant had stated that alleged incident of 18-2-2017 was false. Ravi Kumar Chakradhari (NAW-3) has also admitted in his cross-examination at Para 14 that respondent and his father had denied the allegation of molestation. Both the above witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that on being demand made by appellant/wife and her family members, respondent and his father had refused to give written apology on allegation leveled against father of respondent/husband. Therefore, he (respondent/husband) did not take the wife with him. Although appellant had made complaint Ex.D-1-C to the Superintendent of Police, Durg against respondent and his parents in respect of harassment for dowry and molestation by her father-in-law, but this complaint was made on 24-8-2017 whereas alleged molestation had been done on 18-2-2017. Prior to that, respondent/husband had also made complaint Ex.P-1-C to the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari that his wife Kunti may implicate them in false case of dowry harassment. Document Ex.P-2-C is photocopy of postal receipt and Ex.P-3-C to Ex.P-7-C are medical documents and other documents like marriage card. 15. Perusal of aforesaid evidence available on record would show that report with regard to alleged molestation by father-in-law was made after more than 6 months of alleged incident, prior to that, respondent had already made complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari that they may be implicated in dowry/harassment case as his father has also been made accused by her to slander his character. Respondent and his witnesses have denied aforesaid allegation leveled against his father and both the witnesses of appellant have also stated in their deposition that respondent and his father have stated that alleged allegation is false, although both the defence witnesses have earlier stated that father of husband had apologized in earlier occasion for the same. Hence, considering aforesaid contradictory and weak type of evidence of both the defence witnesses, only on the basis of statement of respondent/wife, it cannot be held proved that her father-in-law had molested her. 16. Since, it is not proved by appellant/wife that her father-in-law had molested her, therefore, not giving written apology in this regard by respondent/husband and his father cannot be held inappropriate. Thus, the reasons stated by the appellant/wife for not joining the company of husband are not found proved. 17. Appellant/wife has stated in her examination-in-chief that she was ready to go with respondent, but he himself had not come to bring her back. Now since the judgment has been passed against appellant to resume their marital life, therefore, she should have to restore their conjugal relations. But, in cross-examination, when she was asked that “today also respondent/husband want to keep you with him separate from joint family, whether you are ready to live with him?” she replied ‘No’. As per her statement in Para 26, she had problem only with father-in-law and there was problem with husband also, but she has specifically stated that at present, she has no problem. In such a situation, wife should have to join conjugal relation with respondent/husband. 18. In view of above consideration on the evidence available on record, we do not find any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by learned Family Court. Therefore, appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. 19. A decree be drawn accordingly.