Swati Sarkar vs Prasanjit Sarkar

V.A. Naik, J—Since these Family Court Appeals arise from the common judgment of the Family Court dated 29.10.2012 in the petition filed by the wife under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, for a decree of divorce and the petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, the same are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

In the petition filed by the appellant -wife under Section 27(1)(d) and (e) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, it was pleaded that the appellant -wife and the respondent -husband were married in Ranchi on 27.11.2001. The wife pleaded that she was studying in the College at the relevant time and was not in a position to take decisions on her own. It is pleaded that after the marriage, the wife co-habited with the husband, his parents and brother at Ranchi. It is pleaded that after the first year of the marriage, the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the wife started torturing her, by making her work throughout the day. It is pleaded that the wife was asked by the husband to bring the sum of Rs. Ten lakh from the parents in order to start a new business. The wife pleaded that the acts of cruelty started increasing in the year 2003 but she was required to face the same as the marriage between the parties was a love marriage. It is pleaded that the wife left the matrimonial home due to the torture but the husband visited the house of her parents and requested her to return to the matrimonial home. It is stated that the wife, believing the words of the husband, agreed to make a false statement against the father Shri Choudhary, in the High Court, in a Criminal Writ Petition filed by the husband. It is pleaded that the husband was in the habit of consuming drugs and alcohol daily. It is pleaded that the husband indulged in criminal activities of extortion, robbery and other offences at Ranchi. It is pleaded that the husband was imprisoned for a period of six months for the offence of extortion. It is pleaded that the husband was in the habit of beating people and was associated with criminals in Ranchi. It is pleaded that the husband had a habit of drinking alcohol and beating the wife regularly. It is pleaded that the wife suffered wounds in view of the beating by the husband but he never took the wife to the hospital. It is pleaded that the parents of the husband used to lock the wife inside the room of the husband for the whole day. It is pleaded that the wife used to live without food for two days and the child was also not given food. It is pleaded that the husband and his parents tortured the wife limitlessly and also never paid any expenses for the child. It is pleaded that the brother of the husband tried to molest the wife on several occasions. It is pleaded that though the husband was aware of the advances of his brother but he never stopped his brother from doing so. It is pleaded that the brother of the husband tried to have sex with the wife since she raised an alarm her neighbours came to her rescue. It is pleaded that Shri Dilip Prasad, Shri Dilip Thakur, Shri Ajitkumar and Shri P. Choudhari, the neighbours were present when she raised an alarm. It is pleaded that the husband was suffering from mental disorder of beating people for no reason. It is pleaded that though the husband was taken to the hospital for his mental disorder, he refused to take treatment. It is pleaded that the husband was in the habit of shouting at night, crying for no reason, abusing the people residing around the residence and also indulging in sex with the commercial sex workers in Ranchi. It is pleaded that the husband was having a number of affairs with other women. It is pleaded that on 12.10.2009, after consuming liquor, the husband started beating the wife with fists and sticks and since all this had become unbearable, the wife left the matrimonial home along with her daughter and started residing with her father at Nagpur.

The husband filed the written statement and denied the claim of the wife. The fact of solemnization of marriage between the parties was not disputed. It is pleaded by the husband that the wife was almost 22 years of age at the time of her marriage and hence it is denied that the wife was not in a position to take the decision of the marriage, on her own. It is pleaded by the husband that the wife and the husband were knowing each other for quite a long time before they decided to marry. All the adverse allegations levelled by the wife against the husband were specifically denied by him in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the written statement. In the specific pleadings, the husband pleaded that the marriage between the parties was a love marriage and it was a thoughtful decision. It is pleaded that the wife belongs to Brahmin caste whereas the husband is a non-Brahmin and, therefore, the father of the wife, who was in service of Western Coalfields Limited, had vehemently opposed the marriage and tried to prevent the marriage by various means. It is pleaded that after the marriage, the parties were residing happily in the matrimonial home when the wife was forced by the father to leave the matrimonial home in 2004 and the husband was required to file Criminal Writ Petition for the production of the wife. It is pleaded that the wife appeared in the Court and stated that her father had taken her to her parental home and had forcibly obtained her signatures on blank papers. It is stated that the wife had stated before the High Court that blank papers with her signatures were used by her father for filing a petition for a declaration that the marriage is a nullity. It is pleaded that the wife had expressed her willingness to co-habit with the husband without making any adverse allegations against him. It is stated that after the wife returned to the matrimonial home in 2004, the parties resided happily till 12.10.2009 without any trouble or differences. It is pleaded that even the keys of the locker and almirah were given to the wife by his parents. It is pleaded that the wife delivered a baby girl in the year 2005 and during pregnancy and after delivery the wife was given complete rest and proper attention. It is pleaded that suddenly in the year 2009, the wife left the matrimonial home but not on her own accord. It is pleaded that the wife left the matrimonial home on the insistence of her Aunt who resided at Delhi. It is pleaded by the husband that he and his parents are very fond of the child, who was five years of age then and it was very painful for the husband to live his life without his daughter. It was reiterated by the husband that the wife had not filed the divorce petition willingly but was compelled by her father and other relatives to file the same only because the marriage was an inter-caste marriage and was solemnized against their wish. The husband sought for the dismissal of the petition filed by the wife under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act on the ground that the wife had left the company of the husband without any cause. The Family Court framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the parties tendered evidence, oral and documentary. The wife examined herself and also examined her father and one Banarasiprasad as her witnesses. So also, the husband examined himself and also examined his father and Amitkumar, a friend of his younger brother to prove his case. On an appreciation of the material on record, the Family Court, by the common judgment dated 29.10.2012 dismissed the petition filed by the wife under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and unsoundness of the mind of the husband. The Family Court allowed the petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. The judgment of the Family Court is challenged by the appellant -wife by filing separate Family Court Appeals.

Shri Bobde, the learned counsel for the appellant -wife submitted that the Family Court was not justified in dismissing the petition filed by the wife on the ground of cruelty and unsoundness of the mind of the husband. It is submitted that it can be gathered from the evidence tendered by the wife and her witnesses that the husband and his family members treated the wife with cruelty. It is submitted that the husband used to beat the wife under the influence of liquor. It is submitted that the wife had to suffer wounds in view of the beating. It is submitted that the brother of the husband had tried to molest the wife and also tried to sexually assault her. It is submitted that the incident of the brother of the husband, sexually abusing the wife, was witnessed by several neighbours including Banarasiprasad, who is examined by the wife as a witness. It is submitted that the Family Court erroneously did not give any weightage to the evidence of Banarasiprasad and gave undue weightage to the evidence of Amitkumar, who was examined on behalf of the husband. It is submitted that it is proved by the wife from the admissions of the husband that the husband was involved in two criminal cases. It is submitted that there was ample evidence on record to prove that the husband was addicted to drugs and was a womanizer. It is submitted that the Family Court did not consider the evidence in the right perspective before dismissing the petition filed by the wife for a decree of divorce. It is submitted that though much evidence has not been led by the wife on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the husband, the evidence tendered by the wife in respect of cruelty inflicted by the husband was enough for granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is submitted that the parties are residing separately from 12.10.2009 and since nearly six years have lapsed from the date of separation, it is clear that the marriage is irretrievably broken down. It is submitted that in the circumstances, when there is no chance of the parties residing together, it would not be proper to refuse a decree of divorce, to the wife. It is submitted that the parties had agreed to dissolve the marriage by a consent decree and the consent terms were signed on 23.06.2011. It is submitted that it is clear from the consent terms that the parties had then agreed to sever the marriage ties. It is submitted that the Family Court was not justified in granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband when the petition was filed by him under the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is submitted that a petition for restitution of conjugal rights could have been filed under the provisions of Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, and the petition filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hind Marriage Act, could not have been entertained. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 SC 1675 : (2006) 2 CTC 510 : (2006) 1 DMC 489 : (2006) 3 JT 491 : (2006) 3 SCALE 252 : (2006) 4 SCC 558 : (2006) AIRSCW 1550 : (2006) 2 Supreme 627 ; Manisha Tyagi Vs. Deepak Kumar, AIR 2010 SC 1042 : (2010) 1 DMC 451 : (2010) 2 JT 82 : (2010) 2 SCALE 294 : (2010) 4 SCC 339 : (2010) 2 SCR 554 : (2010) 2 UJ 991 ; and Sanghamitra Ghosh Vs. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (2007) 1 DMC 105 : (2006) 10 JT 288 : (2007) 148 PLR 76 : (2006) 11 SCALE 313 : (2007) 2 SCC 220 : (2006) 9 SCR 156 Supp , to substantiate his submission that in case the Court finds that there is an irretrievable break down of marriage, a decree of divorce would be necessary.

Shri Pal, the learned counsel for the respondent -husband supported the judgment of the Family Court and submitted that the Family Court was justified in holding that the wife had failed to prove the allegations levelled by her against her husband. It is submitted that there was not an iota of evidence to prove that the husband was of unsound mind as the wife had neither produced any medical certificates nor examined any Doctor to prove her case in that regard. It is submitted that the wife had levelled false, baseless and reckless allegations against the husband in respect of physical torture and beating by him, consumption of liquor and drugs, and womanizing. It is submitted that as the wife had failed to prove the scandalous allegations levelled by her against the husband, she was not entitled to a decree of divorce. It is submitted that though the parties had given a thought for dissolving the marriage by mutual consent on some terms, it did not materialize and the parties had not acted upon the same. It is submitted that the allegations levelled by the wife that the parents of the husband were demanding money from her parents and the husband had also demanded a sum of Rs. Ten lakh from the father of the wife for starting his business were rightly disbelieved by the Family Court. It is submitted that though scandalous allegations have been levelled by the wife against the brother of the husband in respect of molestation, she has utterly failed to prove the same. It is submitted that the wife has tried to depict that the husband suffers from every possible vice but has failed to prove her case. It is stated that the wife had falsely pleaded that the husband was involved in criminal activities of extortion and robbery and was also involved in other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that only one person has filed two criminal cases against the husband and though one of the case is still pending, in the other case, the husband has been acquitted. It is submitted that since the wife has utterly failed to prove the allegations levelled by her against the husband, the Family Court has rightly declined to grant a decree of divorce in her favour. It is stated that it is clear from the order in the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the husband in the year 2004 and also from the fact that the parties happily resided together for nearly 10 years that the wife had not filed the petition for divorce on her own accord but was forced by her father and other relatives to do so. It is stated that the wife had categorically stated before the High Court in the proceedings in Criminal Writ Petition filed by the husband that her father had obtained her signatures on the blank papers and used the papers for presenting a case for a declaration that the marriage between the parties was a nullity. It is stated that it is clear that the father and the other family members of the wife tried their level best to sever the marriage ties. The learned counsel submitted that the judgments reported in Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli; Manisha Tyagi vs. Deepak Kumar; and Sanghamitra Ghosh vs. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (supra) and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant -wife, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. It is stated that in the absence of any provision in the Special Marriage Act, to grant a decree of divorce on the irretrievable break down of marriage, the High Court would not be entitled to grant a decree of divorce on this ground. It is stated that there is no irretrievable break down of marriage as it is amply clear from the evidence on the record that the wife had not left the company of her husband on her own accord but had left the matrimonial home only at the insistence by her father and her other relatives. It is submitted that merely because the petition is filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, the same could not have been dismissed as the cause title or nomenclature of the proceedings cannot be determinative of the relief sought. It is submitted that even if the petition was presented under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family court was entitled to consider it as the petition under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, and grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned counsel prayed for the dismissal of the appeals filed by the wife.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the original record and proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in these Family Court Appeals :

"1.Whether the wife has proved that she was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground that the husband was incurably of unsound mind or was suffering from a mental disorder of such a nature or to such an extent that the wife cannot be expected to live with the husband ?

Whether the wife has proved that the husband has treated the wife with cruelty ?

Whether, the wife is entitled to a decree of divorce ?

What order ?

To answer the aforesaid points, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties. We have stated the pleadings of the parties in detail in the earlier part of the judgment. This is a unique case where the wife has charged the husband of each and every vice that we know of. The wife has pleaded that the husband and his parents started torturing the wife from one year of the marriage. It is pleaded that the wife was tortured as the husband''s parents made the wife work day and night. It is pleaded that the husband and his parents demanded money from the father of the wife, including an amount of Rs. Ten lakh for starting the business of the husband. It is pleaded that the husband was regularly beating the wife in the night by fists and sticks. It is pleaded that the beating of the husband caused wounds on the body of the wife. It is pleaded that the husband was a criminal and was involved in activities of extortion and robbery and also in other offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It is pleaded by the wife that the husband was imprisoned for a period of six months for the offence of extortion. It is pleaded that the brother of the husband tried to molest the wife on several occasions. It is pleaded that once when the brother of the husband tried to have sex with the wife, she raised an alarm and the neighbours rushed for her help. It is pleaded by the wife that the husband and his parents used to lock her in a room for two days or more and she was kept without food. It is pleaded by the wife that the husband and his parents did not provide food to her and even to her child. It was pleaded that the husband not only consumed alcohol but also consumed drugs. It was pleaded that the husband suffers from mental disorder of beating people for no reasons. It is pleaded that the husband had the habit of shouting at night, crying for no reason, using bad words for all the people residing around his residence and harassing the neighbours. It is pleaded that the husband used to have sex with the commercial sex workers in Ranchi and also had affairs with a number of women. In our view, the wife has levelled such allegations against the husband to point out that he is a person with a distinction of having all the vices on the earth. Apart from her own evidence and the evidence of the interested witnesses, the wife did not tender any evidence on record to prove that the husband and his family members were demanding money from the father of the wife. It is not possible to believe the evidence of the wife and the Family Court has rightly disbelieved the same in this respect as the wife and the husband were not on talking terms with the parents of the wife from the date of solemnization of the marriage till the father of the wife took her to his residence in the year 2004. Also, after the wife returned to the matrimonial home along with the husband on the disposal of the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the husband, the husband and the wife were not meeting her father. If that be so, there is no question of the husband demanding money from the father of the wife for starting his business. The marriage between the parties is a love marriage. The parties lived together happily from 2001 till 2004 when the father of the wife forcibly took her to Nagpur. In the Criminal Writ Petition filed by the husband, the wife had categorically stated in the High Court that she was forced by her father to leave the matrimonial home and she wanted to join the company of the husband. It was stated by the wife in the Habeas Corpus proceedings that her father had obtained her signatures on blank papers and utilized those blank papers for filing a petition for a declaration that the marriage is a nullity. From the statements made by the wife before the High Court, specially in the chamber of the learned Judge (that are recorded in the order of the Court) and the fact that the wife again happily resided with the husband for five years after joining his company in 2004, that the wife had no grievance whatsoever against the husband and his family members. It is the case of the wife that the husband started demanding money from the father immediately after one year from the marriage. If that is so, the wife would have informed to the parents in regard to the demand at least in 2004 or even thereafter. Though the father of the wife has stated in the cross examination that he had received a letter from the wife informing him about the demand of money, the said letter is not produced by the wife or her father on record. The Family Court rightly disbelieved the case of the wife that the husband and his family members were demanding money from her father within a year from the marriage. It is also difficult to believe the case of the wife that the husband used to take drugs and alcohol daily. Except the bare word of the wife and her father in that regard, there is no other evidence. Normally, the case of a wife that her husband was taking drugs and alcohol daily could have been believed if it was proved by tendering cogent evidence but considering the nature of the scandalous allegations levelled by the wife against the husband in the petition, there is reason to disbelieve the case of the wife, in that regard. If the husband was in the habit of beating other people in Ranchi, those other people could have been examined by the wife to prove that the husband was a criminal. If the husband was really beating people, they could have easily deposed against him. The case of the wife that the husband was imprisoned for a period of six months in jail also appears to be incorrect as the Appellate Court has acquitted the husband of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. Also it is necessary to note that both the criminal cases are filed at the instance of the same person and the husband is acquitted in one of the cases and the other is pending.

Apart from the bare word of the wife, there is nothing on record to show that the husband was suffering from mental disorder as mentioned in the pleadings of the wife. The mental disorder of the husband according to the wife was that the husband used to beat people for no reason. It is pleaded that the husband was taken to the hospital by the wife for his mental disorder but he refused to take treatment. Mental disorder cannot be proved except by cogent evidence. No documentary evidence is tendered by the wife on record to prove the mental disorder of the husband. We have not heard of a mental disorder of beating people for no reason. Also, the Family Court has rightly held that the wife had failed to prove that her husband was shouting at night, crying for no reason and abusing and harassing the neighbours. If the neighbours were really harassed, the neighbours could have come forward to tender evidence in support of the wife''s case. However, no neighbour is examined by the wife to prove his case. Though the wife has pleaded and also stated in her examination-in-chief that the beatings of the husband by fists and sticks caused injuries and wounds on her body, the Family Court rightly held that the wife had not tendered any evidence in the form of medical prescriptions, reports etc. to show that she suffered wounds in view of the beatings. We find that the wife has levelled reckless and scandalous allegations against the husband in respect of his indulgence in sex with the commercial sex workers in Ranchi. Bald and reckless allegations have been made in the petition that the husband had a number of affairs with other women. If the husband had a number of affairs with the other women, it was necessary for the wife to have mentioned the names of some of other women and tendered cogent evidence in support of her case. We find that there is no proof of the allegations in regard to the husband indulging in sex with the commercial sex workers at Ranchi and having a number of affairs with the other women. These allegations, since not proved, must have caused great mental trauma to the husband. The allegations made by the wife seem to depict that the husband was having all bad things rolled into one. We do not find that the wife has proved the allegations against her husband on any count.

The Family Court did not rightly give much weightage to the evidence of Banarasiprasad, the witness examined on behalf of the wife. It appears from the examination-in-chief of Banarasiprasad that he was not present when the wife raised an alarm in regard to the alleged sexual assault by the brother of the husband. Firstly, this witness does not reside in the neighbourhood of the husband and secondly, if this witness was called by other neighbours to help the wife, as stated by him in his cross examination, he could not have been present to witness the incident at all. The witness has admitted in his cross examination that he is the father of the friend of the wife. Banarasiprasad had admitted in his cross examination that he does not know the family of the husband and he has never visited their house. The witness was also not aware about the date and venue of the marriage. He admitted in his cross examination that he was informed by the wife in respect of the ill treatment by her husband. The witness admitted in his cross examination that he became aware of the incident in regard to the alleged molestation by the brother of the husband from the persons in the mohalla, as they were talking about the incident. The witness stated in his cross examination that the wife used to inform him that her husband was not medically fit. It appears from the reading of the evidence of Banarasiprasad in his cross examination that Banarasiprasad was not present when the incident of alleged molestation of the wife occurred and the witness has tendered evidence in support of the wife merely because she is the friend of his daughter. The Family Court rightly held that the husband had been successful in proving by his evidence and by the evidence of Amitkumar that the parties were residing happily in the matrimonial home and the case of the wife that the husband''s brother allegedly molested her was false and baseless. Amitkumar had stated in his evidence that Abhijeet, the brother of the husband was a respectable person with good moral character. Amitkumar had stated in his cross examination that the husband was falsely implicated in a criminal case and he was acquitted in the same and the other case filed at the insistence of the same person, was pending. It is stated by the witness in his cross examination that he had inquired from one Sanjay, the neighbour, about the incident of molestation by Abhijeet and he had informed him that no such incident has ever taken place. The Family Court rightly held that if the incident had really taken place, the wife could have examined the four neighbours who, according to her, were present after the alarm was raised by the wife. It is conspicuous to note that though the wife has pleaded that Shri Dilip Prasad, Shri Dilip Thakur, Shri Ajitkumar and Shri P. Choudhari were present when the incident of alleged molestation took place, the wife did not examine any of the said persons as her witness. The Family Court found and rightly so that the reckless allegations made by the wife against the husband were not proved by her. The wife was unsuccessful in proving that the husband was incurably of unsound mind and suffering from a disorder of such a nature and to such an extent that it was not possible for her to live with him under one roof. We have observed hereinabove and we reiterate that the wife has failed to prove that the husband was suffering from mental disorder. We find that the wife has failed to prove that the husband treated the wife with cruelty. It is clear that after solemnization of marriage in the year 2001, the wife and the husband resided in the family of the husband till 2004 when she had admitted that her father has forcibly taken her to her parental house and got her signatures on blank papers. The wife had returned to the matrimonial home in the year 2004 and happily resided with the husband till 12.10.2009 when she left the matrimonial home. It is necessary to note that during the period from 2001 to 2009, not a single complaint is made by the wife against the husband in writing either in any police station or even to her parents or relatives. If the husband had really treated the wife with cruelty of the nature of which, she has alleged in the petition, there would have been at least some documentary material in support of her case. There is no material whatsoever in support of the case of the wife. The case of the wife that she was locked in the room several times for two days and she and her child were not provided food is not credible.

We find that the wife has levelled false and baseless allegations against the husband in the petition for divorce. The wife has failed to prove the same, as rightly held by the Family Court. In such a background, it cannot be argued that the wife is entitled to divorce in view of the irretrievable break down of the marriage. A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of his/ her own wrong. In this case, we find that the wife is guilty of making reckless, false and scandalous allegations against the husband and has failed to prove a single allegation. The wife, therefore, cannot be heard to say that she is entitled to divorce due to irretrievable break down of the marriage. The judgments reported in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli; Manisha Tyagi vs. Deepak Kumar; and Sanghamitra Ghosh vs. Kajal Kumar Ghosh, (supra) and relied on by the learned counsel for the wife cannot come to the rescue of the wife for seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of the marriage. Merely, because the parties may have thought at one point of time of dissolving the marriage by mutual consent, the said thought did not materialize and hence the wife cannot seek a divorce on that count. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, in view of the special powers enshrined in the provisions of the Constitution of India, is empowered to severe the marriage ties on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage, however, the High Court would not have the jurisdiction as is exercisable by the Supreme Court in view of the special powers. This Court would be entitled to grant a decree of divorce if one of the clauses of Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act are satisfied. Even otherwise, we have already held that in the circumstances of this case, the wife would not be entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage as she has inflicted cruelty on the husband by making reckless and scandalous allegations against him and failing to prove them.

The submissions made on behalf of the wife that the Family Court was not entitled to grant a decree for restitution of conjugal rights as the parties were governed by the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and the petition was filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is liable to be rejected. Under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a spouse is entitled to claim restitution of conjugal rights. The provisions of Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, and the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, are pari materia. Merely because there is a wrongful mention of the provisions of one enactment, it cannot be said that the husband was not entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights specially when the provisions of the other enactment could have been easily applied to the case in hand. The husband has clearly proved that the wife has left his company without just and reasonable excuse. It appears that the wife has left the company of the husband and the matrimonial house only at the instance of her father and her other relatives. The wife has failed to prove that the husband has treated her with cruelty or that he is of unsound mind. In the circumstances of the case, the Family Court has rightly held that the wife was living separately from her husband without any just and reasonable excuse. We do not find any fault with the judgment of the Family Court granting a decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband and rejecting the petition filed by the wife for a decree of divorce.

In the result, both the Family Court Appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.