- (1.)THE appellant is a husband who has sought divorce from the respondent -wife on the ground of cruelty. The contention raised at the hands of the appellant -husband was firstly, that the respondent -wife had willfully refused to have sexual cohabitation with him, and secondly, that she had been abusing, ill -treating and quarreling with the appellant, as well as, with his parents and brothers.
(2.)THE Family Court which adjudicated upon the claim raised by the appellant declined to grant the appellant a decree of divorce. The legal position remained unaltered even at the stage of the High Court which, by the impugned order dated 12.12.2003, rejected the prayer of the appellant for divorce.
During the course of consideration before this Court, in the first instance, we examined the submissions advanced by the Signature Not Verified by the respondent -wife, of sexual cohabitation with him. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, the High Court relying on the submissions of the respondent -wife recorded the following observations in the impugned order:

".....The respondent -wife in her evidence has deposed that it is not a fact that she did not intend to lead conjugal life with her appellant -husband and she had refused sexual cohabitation with him. She has further deposed that she is still willing and ready to lead conjugal life with her appellant -husband. She has also denied the allegation in her evidence on oath to have asked her appellant -husband to have separate residence. The sexual cohabitation between the spouses is the most important aspect of the conjugal life and it is within their domain. Therefore, the case of the appellant in respect thereof has no leg to stand..... .....The respondent -wife in her evidence has specifically stated that she has never asked her appellant -husband to have his separate residence. In para -15 of her evidence she has specifically deposed that her appellant -husband has never told him regarding his salary and the mode of its expenditure even on her query and it is not a fact that there had been differences between her and his appellant -husband in respect of his salary during her stay in her matrimonial home and there was also no quarrel. She has further deposed that there was a happy conjugal relationship between them during first fifteen days of their marriage and thereafter demands of a car and cash was made and for the fulfillment of the said demand, she was assaulted and she was also denied proper food. She has also deposed that the said demand could not be fulfilled by her father due to his inability and inspite of persuasion by her relatives there was no change in respect of the said demand and she returned to her parent's house in the company of her father with the consent of her appellant -husband. She has further deposed that when she again came to her matrimonial home in the month of May, 1988 she had to face the same cruelty perpetrated on her and on getting information in respect thereof her father came and she returned to her parent's house. She has also deposed that she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 14.7.1980 and on that occasion also she had gone to her parent's house with their tacit consent. In para -25 of her evidence she has deposed that she was assaulted in presence of her appellant -husband who was a passive spectator in respect thereof....."

(3.)SINCE the above factual position is not disputed and the statement of the respondent has not been placed on the record of this case, we have no doubt about the authenticity of the factual position expressed by the High Court in the impugned order. In view of the above factual position, it is not possible for us to accept, that the respondent -wife had willfully refused the appellant of sexual cohabitation.