1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.836 OF 2008. Vivek S/o Vishnupant Phadke ... Appellant. Versus Vaishali W/o Vivek Phadke ... Respondent. ... Mrs.A.N.Ansari, advocate for the appellant Mr.S.B.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 04.11.2009. PER COURT 1. This Second Appeal at instance of the husband is against judgment rendered by learned District Judge, Jalna, whereby the request for restitution of conjugal rights was turned down by allowing the appeal. He had filed application U/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution 2 of conjugal rights and the same was allowed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court held that the wife (Respondent) had sufficient reasons to reside separately from the husband (appellant). 2. Heard learned counsel. 3. On consideration of the judgment of the first appellate Court, it is manifestly clear that the Respondent was previously working on the STD Boothe of the appellant and married to him as a result of the intimacy developed during the course of her employment. It appears that she was already a divorcee. It prima facie appears, therefore, that when she had once received sufferance from her earlier marriage, ordinarily, she would not have abandoned the company of the appellant as her attempt could have been to save the second marriage. It has come on record that she had to file a complaint U/s 498-A of the I.P.Code and the husband was prosecuted. It also appears that he was prosecuted for the offence under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition 3 Act, 1961. The first appellate Court duly considered the attending circumstances while holding that the wife had not abandoned the company of the husband without any sufficient reason. Consequently, this finding of fact does not deserve any interference in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as such. Hence, the same is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/sa83608