JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This appeal as well as the cross appeal filed by the Respondent is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, whereby the Family Court passed a decree for judicial separation u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It further directed the Appellant to pay Rs. 300/- per month to the Respondent for maintenance of the youngest son. Both of them were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Appellant filed an application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent. Both parties are governed by Hindu Law. Their marriage was solemnized about 30 years back and out of their wedlock two sons and one daughter were born. Few years after their marital life, their was bickering, quarrel and rancor between them as a result of which it was impossible for either of them to continue to live together. It has been alleged by the Respondent that the Appellant developed illicit relationship with one, Sanjukta Das, as employee of this Court and when she objected to it, the Appellant deserted her and continued to reside with said Sanjukta Das. She was not arrayed as a party before the Family Court, nor was she examined as a witness by either arty. It is also the admitted case of the parties that at the instance of the Respondent-wife the local police had taken some action and G.R. Case No. 1339 of 1990 was started against the Appellant. Also there was a disciplinary proceeding being D.P. No. 18 of 1986 initiated against him. In the said disciplinary proceeding the Respondent having not proved those allegations, it was dropped. In the said disciplinary proceeding, the Appellant is said to have been acquitted of the charges. Since their relationship became sour and there was no chance of their reunion, the Appellant-husband was constrained to file an application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both parties were led to trial. The Appellant had examined 9 witnesses; and the Respondent too had examined 9 witnesses. After a thorough examination of the evidence, the learned Judge, Family Court granted a decree of judicial separation. So the Appellant being aggrieved by such of judicial separation, has preferred this appeal. 3. Mr. Both parties were led to trial. The Appellant had examined 9 witnesses; and the Respondent too had examined 9 witnesses. After a thorough examination of the evidence, the learned Judge, Family Court granted a decree of judicial separation. So the Appellant being aggrieved by such of judicial separation, has preferred this appeal. 3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant urged with vehemence that even assuming that the decree of judicial separation is worked out since in the meanwhile about five years period has elapsed, this Court is not precluded from examining the grounds for granting a decree for divorce. We requested the counsel appearing for both the parties to come to a settlement since both parties are in Government service and their age of superannuation is also nearing. But unfortunately, the Respondent did not agree to such settlement and she insisted the matter to be decided on merits. 4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-wife has submitted that in case a decree for divorce is granted on some unfounded allegations leveled by the Appellant, the status of the Respondent would be at stake, so also their children. Therefore, in the above situation, let the marital status continue. Mr. Mohapatra appearing for the Appellant while refuting submission of the Respondent has advanced his contention by stating that there is no reason to keep the litigation pending for long since both parties are running from pillar to post for more than two decades and there is no chance of their living together even if it is kept pending for years. In such background, let a decree of divorce be granted. 5. From the facts situation emerging from the case, we find that the relationship between the parties has come to an irretrievable end. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no change for settlement nor does the chance of their reunion appear to be bright. The learned Judge, Family Court, has not discussed in his judgment regarding the grounds for granting a decree for divorce. The grounds for judicial separation u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act are entirely different from those for granting a decree for divorce. In the trial court judgment it has not been discussed whether there are sufficient grounds to pass a decree for divorce. The grounds for judicial separation u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act are entirely different from those for granting a decree for divorce. In the trial court judgment it has not been discussed whether there are sufficient grounds to pass a decree for divorce. Since this Court is exercising the powers of the appellate court, we can as well scan the evidence and come to a proper conclusion. But in that event the parties may lose a forum. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for both parties have suggested that instead of disposing of the case on merits, it would be appropriate to remit it back to the trial court to give a further finding as regards sufficiency of grounds for grant of a decree for divorce. It may be borne in mind that the chance of settlement between the parties appears to be very bleak. Therefore, the case has to be disposed of on merits on the evidence already on record. We prohibit the learned Judge, Family Court to allow either party to adduce any further evidence. 6. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack with a direction to depose of the application u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Age on the basis of the evidence already available on record within a period of three months from the date of receive. 7. It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan that an amount of Rs. 8,103/- has been deposited in shape of fixed deposit in the name of Samarj it Mohanty, the younger son of the Appellant, who was then minor. Since he has attained majority, both parties agree that the said amount may be withdrawn and re-invested in term deposit for a further period of five years. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Civil Appeal as well as the cross appeal is disposed of. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.