THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A. No. 702 of 2001 Oral judgment: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, decreeing the petition in O.P. No. 43 of 2000, filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and directing the appellant to join the respondent and lead marital life. The respondent-husband filed the O.P. against the appellant- wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, he stated that on 05.05.1992, he married the appellant at her house at Bodasakurrupalem, as per Hindu rites and customs. Their marriage was consummated. He brought the appellant to his native place Appanapalli in the month of August, 1992, and while they were living there happily, in the month of December, 1992, the parents of the appellant on the plea that the appellant became due to morning sickness, took her along with them to their house at Bodasakurrupalem. He further stated on 21.07.1993, he joined as Junior Assistant in Mavulamma Devasthanam, Bhimavaram. While working there, he came to know that he was blessed with a son on 27.07.1993, and immediately, he along with his parents went to Bodasakurrupalem to see his son, but the appellant and her parents did not receive them properly. In the month of November, 1993, he went to Bodasakurrupalem and requested the appellant to come and join him at Appanapalli, as per customs, and that from there, he would take her to Bhimavaram. The parents of the appellant refused to send her and the appellant also flatly refused to join him at Appanapalli. Thereafter, at the instance of her parents and maternal uncle, the appellant joined him at Bhimavaram on 26.04.1994. The appellant, without informing the respondent, used to visit her parents at Bodasakurrupalem twice a month, and used to bring her back. Then, all of a sudden, in the month of March, 1995, the parents of the appellant, without informing him, took the appellant to their house. In spite of several requests, the appellant did not join. Therefore, in the month of September, 1995, he along with elders went to Bodasakurrupalem and raised dispute before Dangeti Tataji, Sarpanch of the village, and a panchayat was held, and on the advice of mediators, the appellant joined him on 04.10.1995 at Bhimavaram. Again in the month of January, 1996, the appellant left to her parents house and returned to Bhimavaram after one and a half months. Finally, on 28.04.1996, the appellant went to her parents house along with the child, and in spite of his best efforts, the appellant did not join him. He further stated that he treated the appellant well, but the appellant deserted him by staying with her parents at their house. She denied him conjugal life and subjected him to mental agony and cruelty. She also insulted his parents and treated them with cruelty. The appellant denied him the love and affection of his child. He further stated that he came to know that the parents of the appellant embraced Christianity, and their instance, started hating Hindus and their religion. As in spite of his best efforts, the appellant did not join him, he got issued legal notice dated 14.08.1998 calling upon the appellant to join him along with his son. The appellant got issued reply notice dated 12.12.1998 making false allegations and claimed maintenance. Therefore, he got issued rejoinder notice dated 07.01.199 and called upon the appellant to join him. As in spite of lapse of more than two and a half years and in spite of his making best efforts, the appellant did not join him, the respondent filed the present O.P. The appellant filed counter to the claim made by the respondent in the O.P. She denied the contention of the respondent that in the month of December, 1992, her parents took her to their house on the pretext that she became weak. She also denied that she and her parents did not inform the respondent about the birth of male child, and that they did not treat the respondent and his parents properly when they came to see the child. She also denied the allegation made by the respondent that in the month of December, 1993 he requested her to join him at Appanapalli as customary formality and then he would take her to Bhimavaram. However, she admitted that she joined the respondent in the month of April, 1994 at Bhimavaram and stayed with him till January, 1995. She denied the allegation of the respondent that during her stay with him, she used to visit her parents house twice a month without informing him and that the respondent used to bring her back. She contended that since the child was suffering from a serious ailment, her parents took her along with the child to their house at Bodasakurrupam with the permission of the respondent, and that the child regained his health after her parents provided treatment to him. She denied the allegation that a panchayat was held in the month of September, 1995 in the presence of Dangeti Tataji, Sarpanch of the village. She stated that when her parents raised the dispute and when the elders asked the respondent to come, then he along with some elders and Advocate came. Then she described the harassment made by the respondent to her, and that the respondent voluntarily admitted his acts and undertook that he will take care of the appellant and the child well and took her along with the child to his house on 04.10.1995 at Bhimavaram, and there, she along with the child lived with the respondent till January, 1996. She denied the allegation that she deserted the respondent. In the month of January, 1996, the respondent pushed her to the wall with an intention to cause injury to her, and thereafter, he necked her out of the house along with the child and threw her suit case. She stood in the verandah, till her father came and took her to his house. She denied that she treated the respondent and his parents with cruelty, and contended that it the respondent, who treated her with cruelty. She contended that it is not she, but the respondent who has deserted her. She also denied that she denied the love and affection of the child to the respondent. She contended that the respondent apprehending that she may file dowry case, filed the present O.P., which is liable to be dismissed. The respondent in support of his case examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. A1 to A5, while the appellant examined herself as R.W.1, but marked no document. In the background of the facts of the case, the learned Judge framed the question, namely whether the appellant without any reasonable cause withdrew from the society of the respondent?, and having considered the same in the light of the evidence let in by the parties, held that the appellant failed to prove that she had reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of the respondent and live separately from him, and accordingly, allowed the O.P. filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to join the respondent within one month from the date of the said order. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the reason for the appellant to withdraw from the society of the respondent is the ill-treatment and harassment meted to her by the respondent, but the learned Judge without considering the same, has committed an error in allowing the O.P. filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment under appeal. He submitted that since the appellant failed to prove that there was reasonable cause for her to withdraw from the society of the respondent and live separately, the learned Judge rightly allowed the O.P. filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights, and no interference is warranted therewith, and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-wife and the learned counsel for the respondent-husband and having perused the judgment under appeal. The evidence on record adduced by the parties shows that the appellant after going to her maternal house for delivery, did not join the company of the respondent and did not allow the respondent to see his son. The appellant with the support of her parents, made serious allegations of harassment by the respondent and his family members. The fact that the parents of the respondent could not have harassed the appellant is evident from the fact that the parents of the respondent never stayed with the respondent. When the parents of the respondent did not stay with him, the question their harassing and ill-treating the appellant does not arise. Except stating that the respondent and his family members harassed and ill-treated her and that is the reason why she withdraw from the society of the respondent, she did not place any evidence, much less examined any of her neighbours, to prove the allegation of her harassment and ill-treatment by the respondent and his parents. T he evidence on record further shows that in spite of best efforts made by the respondent to take back the appellant to her fold, she did not join him. The appellant did not produce any evidence to show that she had reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of the respondent and live separately with her parents. Though the appellant expressed that she loves her husband but would not join him until there is security to her life, the fact remains, foundation of marriage is built on mutual trust. If any differences arise between them, they have to reconcile them amicably. The appellant having married the respondent, on one side cannot say that she loves her husband, and on the other, say that she would join the respondent only if there is security to her life. If according to her, she loves the appellant, then without any pre-conditions, she should join the respondent. At any rate, the appellant having failed to prove the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment by the respondent and his parents, and she having failed to prove that she had reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of the respondent and live separately with her parents, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be taken to the order under appeal passed by the learned Judge, allowing the O.P. filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and directing the appellant to join the respondent to lead marital life. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 01.11.2011 KSR