Dear Asheesh. Please refer to Introduction to the Social Sciences (RLE Social Theory) by Maurice Duverger.

Start with what you want to accomplish? to Generalize? to Specify?

In science, theory is the highest level of inference possible. A theory should explain a process of significance (i.e., gravity, other processes in physics or chemistry, evolution, etc.), and structure research questions to find out more about what we do not yet know to stimulate further modeling, hypotheses formation and testing, and theory building. It is not just a "good idea", an organizing descriptive principal, or a description or interpretation of a relatively low level phenomena (what is "going on" in a particular setting or society?). In anthropology, we have very, very little that might qualify as theory. As the behavioral variation of modern traditional societies and past humans is still only imperfectly described (not yet well-understood), we certainly do not know the universe of potential differences in many contingent human responses to environmental and social challenges. In archaeology, we have even less actual theory development. Unlike the analogy to a science of the past in geology, archeology does not (yet?) have the multiply-tested hypotheses that identify a range of important geologic and geomorphic processes. Most archaeology remains mired in cultural historical description, attempting to order and classify materials or cultures, but has only minimal explanatory research that helps understand the complex nature of our record of the human past. The study of taphonomy (how things are buried) and uniformitarian observations about processes that modify faunal remains are the most rigorously developed methods that are analytic not descriptive. However, while critically important research, they principally address site formation and provide diverse new views of human use of animals, but are mute about many of the past human activities of interest to us. Many topics of intellectual research still cannot claim such important theoretical understanding (i.e., psychology's interest in explaining many of the workings of the human mind). Is there robust theory (in the scientific meaning of the concept) in other disciplines considered to be social sciences?

We are using theories during formulation of theoritical framework in initial stage. Really important to find put the suitable theories to related it with our objective of study.

Is this "theory" or various "theoretical frameworks" in the sense of an overall organizing rationale for your study? This does not sound like the scientific role of theory. In science, a theory is a tested and unrejected explanation derived from multiple testing of hypotheses. Scientific theories are accepted understanding of processes, not just a perspective. For example, in biology researchers do not use evolutionary theory as a "suitable theory for the objective of study", evolutionary theory is the paradigm in which all other research is evaluated.