Short Note : Learned counsel for the respondent, urged that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed after an inordinate delay and so under section 23 (1) (d) of the Hindu Marriage Act the relief for restitution of conjugal rights should be refused. In view of this statutory provision having been made, the question in fact is not whether we should exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner-appellant but the question would be whether the delay has been satisfactorily (explained by the petitioner appellant. In the instant case the only reason that one can spell out from the evidence is that attempts were being made by the appellant to bring back the wife. In the opinion of this court, the explanation is not sufficient to satisfactorily explain the delay of about 10 years. Yet another reason for refusing the relief of restitution of conjugal right, is that from the evidence on record this Court feels that by granting this decree the parties shall not be in a position to make their family life happy. Babu Rao v. Mst. Sushila Bai and others. 1963 JLJ 446 relied on. Appeal dismissed.