JUDGMENT : G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.06.2022 made in D.O.P.No.115 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Family Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. Arunkumar respondent herein filed the said D.O.P. seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the DIVORCE ACT , 1869. By the impugned order, the Court below allowed the petition and granted the relief of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband / Arunkumar. The appellant was directed to live along with her husband in his matrimonial home at Chennai. 3. Questioning the same, wife filed this appeal. 4. The appellant Helan Janani and the respondent D.Arunkumar got married as per the Christian rites and customs on 30.06.2014. Arunkumar was then employed in USA. A male child was born on 15.03.2015. Arunkumar took both the appellant and the child to USA. Since the child was suffering from mild Autism, the parties decided to come down to India and settle at Chennai. Unfortunately, differences arose between the appellant and the respondent and the appellant left the matrimonial home sometime in 2019. The respondent filed G.W.O.P.No.81 of 2020 seeking custody of the child. He also filed D.O.P.No.115 of 2021. Both the petitions were allowed by the Family Court, Tirunelveli. 5. Questioning the order made in G.W.O.P.No.81 of 2020, the appellant filed C.M.A.(MD)No.937 of 2022. We partly allowed the said appeal today and it has been disposed of by granting rotational / cyclical custody to the appellant along with the respondent. 6. The question that calls for consideration is whether the order impugned in this appeal has to be interfered with. We need not go into the merits of the matter. This appeal can be disposed of on a short ground. Section 32 of the DIVORCE ACT reads as follows:- “ 32. Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. — When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, either wife, or husband may apply, by petition to the District Court for restitution of conjugal rights, and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the 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.” 7. Any petition for restitution of conjugal rights can be allowed only if it is shown that the respondent spouse had withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable excuse. In the case on hand, the Court below had allowed D.O.P.No.115 of 2021 by taking into account the interest of the special child. The Court below had observed that considering the welfare of the minor child, both the parties should unite. This is not the legal standard set out in the provision. The Court below ought to have rendered a specific finding that the appellant was not justified in withdrawing her conjugal company. Such a finding has not been rendered. The approach adopted by the Court below is no doubt laudable. But then, that is not what has been contemplated by law. Without rendering a definite finding that there has been withdrawal from conjugal company without reasonable excuse or cause, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be ordered. The onus lies on the petitioner (husband in this case) to demonstrate that the conduct of the respondent was unreasonable. The Court below ought to have given a finding as to whether this burden cast on the husband had been discharged. Failure to render such a finding vitiates the impugned order. 8. For this reason, we set aside the order impugned in this appeal. The matter is remitted to the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli for fresh consideration. We grant liberty to both the parties to adduce further evidence if so they desire. This civil miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.