ORDER
1. A suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent-husband has been decreed by the court below by its judgment dated 13-11-1987 against the appellant. The appellant is the wife.
2. The husband's case before the court below was that he was married to the appellant on 5-12-1985. After few days of their marriage the appellant is said to have been called by her father and attend some religious functions at her father's house and she in pursuance of the said call had left for the father's house and did not return to the husband's house despite many requests made by the respondent-husband From 11-12-1985 the appellant is said to be staying at her father's house and is since then living separately from her husband. It is also alleged that the appellant has secured some employment in C.R.P. Force. According to the respondent it was not necessary for the appellant to seek appointment because the respondent was ready to maintain the appellant and give her all comforts in his house. Seeking a job in C.R.P.F. has, therefore, affected the husband and his family's dignity. Even after having secured a job by the appellant the husband has again invited the appellant to live with him because he did not want the matrimonial relations of the parties to get affected in any manner. The appellant is said to have not agreed to this proposal and has left the company of the respondent and deprived the husband of her company, The appellant is said to have deprived the respondent of her company without any justification and has refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations. The husband in his plaint has alleged that he suffered mental and physical torture by the conduct of the appellant as she has no reason or rhyme to live separately from the respondent and has refused to his fold despite repeated requests. Therefore, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was sought.
3. The appellant appears to have presented herself before the court below through an Advocate and filed written statement. The appellant has admitted that she had gone to her father's house on 11-12-1985 and did not return to her husband on account of the circumstances created by the respondent's family. It was alleged by the appellant that the respondent himself was responsible for not giving due respect to the appellant and was levelling incorrect allegations against her. It is further stated that the respondent and his family members were pressurising the appellant not to serve in the C.R.P.F. The husband was trying to persuade the appellant to give up the C.R.P.F. service so as to make her dependent on him and see that the appellant suffered financial insecurity throughout the life. It is stated by the appellant that she cannot give up the job which she had taken up and live with the husband permanently. It is a matter of pride for the husband to get a job in C.R.P.F. and the respondent-husband should also consider this matter in the similar way. The respondent is said to have lost his right by his own conduct to ask the appellant to live with him. In the additional pleas the appellant has stated that right from 6-12-1985 the respondent has been making accusations against the appellant and all other educated girls. On 7-12-1985 the appellant had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of her brother. The respondent also had attended the func-
tion. When the respondent wanted to come back to his home he asked the appellant that she could stay at her father's house and come back along with a scooter and on their way to the respondent's house the respondent is said to have told the appellant that it is strange that her five brothers cannot purchase a scooter for him. By this the appellant wants to make out a case that the respondent had demanded dowry from the appellant. Thereafter the respondent is said to have shown a conduct which was unbecoming of a Hindu husband. The respondent persuaded the appellant not to take up the job and the family of the respondent demanded a scooter in dowry and thereafter the appellant and her father thought that it was not safe for the appellant to live in the house of the respondent. The appellant has stated that she has taken up the job only with a view to purchase scooter for the appellant so as to save her marital life as also avoid the torture suffered by her in her parental house.
4. After filing the written statement the appellant did not attend the court. She absented herself and thereafter did not attend the court on any date which was fixed by the lower court. On 30-10-1987 ex parte proceedings were taken and the case was posted for 13-11-1987. She is said to have filed two applications 23/C and 24/C before the trial Court. The trial Court recorded the statement 6f the respondent and delivered the judgment, which was ex parte. The pleas raised by the appellant-wife in the written statement have not been substantiated by her because she did not appear in court nor did she try to prove the allegations levelled by her against the husband in respect of cruelty or any demand for bringing dowry. There is nothing on record to prove that any cruelty was inflicted on the appellant or any demand of dowry was made by the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that it was not possible for the appellant to live with the respondent as she apprehended cruelty from the respondent in his house. This apprehension is based on certain pleas which she has raised in the written statement in respect of demand of dowry by the husband and in respect of compelling her not to secure a job in C.R.P.F. It is contended that the demand of dowry is itself illegal and if such a demand is made it would amount to cruelty and would afford reasonable excuse to the appellant to refuse to live with the respondent. It is also" contended that if the appellant had taken the job in order to be secured financially the respondent could not compel her to give up the job and make her insecure throughout her life. This attitude of the respondent is said to be unreasonable, which would justify the appellant to refuse to live with him.
6. Under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act a husband or wife can apply to the District Court for restitution of conjugal rights and the court on being satisfied that either the husband or wife has without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the aggrieved party can pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The explanation (1) to the section says that where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society. Therefore, in the present case the burden to prove that withdrawal from the society of the husband was reasonable is on the appellant. From the pleadings of the parties it is revealed that the appellant has withdrawn from the society of the respondent. She has tried to justify it on the ground that there was an unreasonable demand on the part of the respondent and his family members for dowry and it will not be reasonable for her to live with the respondent in the teeth of that unreasonable demand. She wants this court to infer that there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it will not be possible for her to live with the respondent. This aspect of the case was argued very vehemently by the learned counsel for the appellant, who read the written statement number of times with a view to convince the court that the appellant was justified in withdrawing from the society of the respondent. I am afraid that this contention of the appellant cannot be accepted for two reasons. In the first place, the pleas raised in the written statement have not been sub-
stantiated and in the second place, the defence of reasonable excuse to withdraw from the company of the husband because of any reasonable apprehension in future cannot be inferred from the unsubstantiated pleas of the written statement. The court below has recorded the statement of the respondent and there is nothing to rebut that statement. The statement of the husband has substantiated the assertions made by him in the plaint, which has remained unrebutted. The appellant even after having an opportunity failed to prove the defence set up by her in the written statement could not be allowed to argue on the basis of the written statement alone that there was a demand of dowry on the part of the husband and it was unreasonable for her to live with the husband in view of this demand and because of these facts she has suffered any cruelty at the hands of the respondent. She has not discharged the burden of reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of the respondent. Therefore, she cannot refuse to live with the respondent and the submissions made by her counsel in this appeal, therefore, appear to be misplaced.
7. The husband seems to have tried to prevent the break up of the marriage. He has done his best to persuade the appellant to come to his fold. The appellant has without any excuse refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations which are cast on her as a wife governed by the Hindu Marriage Act Hindu Marriage has some sanctity and it cannot be broken at the whim of one party or the other. If the husband or wife refuses to discharge their matrimonial obligations, they have to lead strong evidence in support of their refusal to discharge their obligations. The refusal to discharge obligations can be said to be reasonable or justified only when it is impossible for one of them to live with the other. The withdrawal of the company in order to be reasonable must be on account of cruelty either physical or mental, such habitual ill-treatment of the wife or the husband which makes it impossible for either of them to live together or if there is accusation of adultery which is made without any foundation deliberately to give mental torture by one spouse to the other or there is illegal demand of getting dowry and on account of that wife suffers torture either at the hands of her husband or at the hands of family members with the support of her husband or either of the spouse refuses to cohabit with the other without any justification or either of the spouse withdraws the company of the other without any reason. These are only illustrative cases and not exhaustive. Each case has to be decided on its own merits and on the evidence available before the court. On the basis of the pleas raised in the written statement the reasonableness of the attitude of the wife or the husband to withdraw the company of the other spouse cannot be inferred. Therefore, it is not possible for this court to infer that in the instant case the husband has made any demand with respect to bringing of dowry to the appellant. It is also not possible to hold that the husband had any time behaved in a manner which was unbecoming of him as a husband. It is also not possible for this court to hold that it is not safe for the appellant to live with the respondent as she has some reasonable apprehension of receiving habitual mal-treatment or cruelty at the hands of the respondent. Even the statement of the appellant has not been recorded. Therefore, the decree passed by the trial court cannot be set aside. On the basis of the assertions made in the written statement, which are not proved.
8. The respondent has proved that the appellant has withdrawn from his society without any reason. Taking up of the job by the appellant in the C.R.P.F. should not affect their marital ties. This should have been taken as an ordinary event in the life of the parties. After the appellant having received education she has a right to serve and service in the C.R.P.F. has some dignity. She may be looking forward to a bright future. I was told at the Bar that the husband is also a legal practitioner. Therefore, the profession chosen by the husband or the wife, which are dignified, should not have been disadvantageous to either of them. Their professions should not be allowed to interfere with their married life and if they still realise their duty and obligation they can come together without the intervention of the Court, On the basis of the written statement or some pleas raised in the memo of appeal I am not inclined to rule break in favour of the marriage between the parties.
9. For the reasons stated above and for the discussion made on the merits of the case I am of the view that there is no force in this appeal and the same must fail. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal. However, there will be no order as to costs. The interim order/ orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
10. The trial court record shall be sent back immediately.
11. Appeal dismissed.