1 fca-158-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 315 OF 2010 Mr. Vishal Jayprakash Jagtap .. Appellant Vs. Mrs. Sheetal Vishal Jagtap .. Respondent Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for appellant. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DECEMBER 06, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Tajane, the learned counsel for the appellant – husband. He has also submitted private paper book. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26/8/2010 whereunder the Family Court at Pune allowed the Petition No.A-981 of 2009, filed by the respondent-wife and ordered the appellant 2 fca-158-10 to resume the conjugal rights with the wife and decree for restitution of conjugal rights came to be drawn. 3. The parties were married on 21/4/2007 at Pune as per the Hindu religion customs and the wife approached the Family Court sometimes in October, 2009 with a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant was served with notice, he caused his appearance before the Family Court, but did not file any written statement so as to oppose the petition. The Family Court, therefore, directed the petition to proceed without written statement. Even thereafter the appellant did not take any steps either to cross-examine the respondent-wife or to lead evidence in rebuttal. He virtually abandoned the proceedings before the Family Court and under these circumstances, the Family Court considered the evidence placed before it by the wife. 4. As per the wife, after the marriage, the appellant reached her to her parents home on 13/7/2008 and thereafter he did not turned up. She made number of attempts to reach him on phone or through relations, but in vain. It appears that the appellant had also issued a notice dated 9/3/2009 to the respondent through his lawyer and the notice concluded 3 fca-158-10 that under no circumstances he was willing to restore the matrimonial relationship with the respondent. 5. Having regard to the evidence placed by the wife on record and which evidence went unchallenged for the reasons attributable to the appellant, we are satisfied that the Family Court was justified in allowing the petition filed by the wife and directing restitution of conjugal rights. 6. Hence, this appeal must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 7. Civil Application No. 315 of 2010 does not survive and stands disposed as such. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)