[2025:RJ-JP:7855-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4796/2024 Dimple W/o Ravindra Meena D/o Pritam Singh Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Khohra (Santha), Tehsil Mahwa District Dausa, Presently R/o E-Block 19/20, Shankar Vihar, Sawai Mator, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus Ravindra Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Khohra (Santha), Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr.Rajendra Kumar Saraswat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 21/02/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):- 1. This appeal is filed aggrieved of judgment and decree dated 29.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mahwa, District Dausa allowing the suit for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and Permanent Injunction filed by the respondent-husband (hereinafter read as ‘respondent’). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant- wife (hereinafter read as ‘appellant’) is ready to go to her matrimonial home and to perform her obligations of matrimonial relationship but the respondent is not permitting her to do so. The contention is that the appellant was being harassed by demanding dowry. During pendency of the petition when she went to the matrimonial home the respondent filed a complaint under Section 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. and the appellant vide order dated [2025:RJ-JP:7855-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-4796/2024] 09.01.2024 was restrained under Section 107/111 Cr.P.C. by the Executive Magistrate, Jaipur (North). 3. The Court while deciding the issue as to whether the appellant left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause held that the defence taken by the appellant that she was being physically abused and harassed for bringing more dowry was not proved. The appellant made a bald statement in the suit proceedings that she was being physically abused, mentally and physically tortured and there was a demand of dowry, however, no police complaint or medical certificate was produced to prove the allegations. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is ready and willing to go to the matrimonial home but the complaint made by husband under Section 106 Cr.P.C. proves that the respondent is not permitting her to do so, lacks merit. 5. It would be apposite to mention that no document with regard to the complaint filed by the respondent and the order passed thereon, was produced. Further the alleged incident is prior to passing of the decree. There is nothing on record to show that the efforts made for restitution of conjugal rights were hampered by the acts of the respondent. Moreover, if the appellant is ready to join company of her husband, there is no occasion to challenge the judgment. 6. There is no factual or legal error in the impugned judgment and decree. 7. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/5 Whether Reportable: Yes