Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by Smt. Sanyogita Devi against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Karnal, dated 30th July, 1983.
(2.)BRIEFLY the facts are that the parties were married at Karnal on 1st March, 1979. A daughter named Leena was born out of the wedlock on 16th April, 1980. It is alleged by the wife that the parents of the Respondent were greedy persons and started torturing and mal -treating her on the ground of insufficiency of dowry. It is further alleged that the Respondent without any reasonable excuse withdrew from her society with effect from 9th November, 1980. Consequently she filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short referred to as "the Act") for restitution of conjugal rights.
The petition was contested by the Respondent who controverted the allegations of the Petitioner and averred that he and his parents never mal -treated her. He also filed a counter -claim under Section 23 -A of the Act for seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty on the part of the Petitioner towards him.

(3.)THE case of the Petitioner was fixed for evidence for 7th May, 1983. On that date it was found that the witnesses of the Petitioner had not been served and, therefore, the case was adjourned for 2nd June, 1983. Again the witnesses were not served by that date too and the case was adjourned to 23rd July, 1983. On that day the witnesses were not present and at the request of the counsel the case was adjourned to 29th July, 1983 subject to payment of Rs. 20 as costs. On the adjourned date the counsel for the Petitioner made a statement before the Court that the Petitioner had not contacted him and even the costs had not been made available for payment to the Respondent. He further stated that he had no objection if the petition was dismissed for non -prosecution. The counsel for the Respondent opposed the dismissal of the petition for non -prosecution and requested that a decree of divorce under Section 23A of the Act be passed in favour of the Respondent. The case was adjourned by the Court to 30th July, 1983. On that date the counsel for the Respondent made a statement that he had no objection if a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the Petitioner. The learned Court on the basis of the statement of the counsel for the Respondent passed a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.