Judgment : Heard Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mrs. A. A. Agni, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23/12/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-I, FTC– I, South Goa at Margao in Regular Appeal No. 65 of 2011 by which the judgment dated 18/01/2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Marriage Petition no. 1/2001/A has been quashed and set aside and the Marriage Petition has been dismissed. 3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the manner in which their names appear in the cause title of Marriage Petition no.1/2001/A. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. 4. The plaintiff had filed the said Marriage Petition for dissolution of marriage between him and the defendant under Article 4(1) and (5) of the Law of Divorce and for direction to the Civil Registrar of Salcete at Margao to cancel the entry in the register of marriages, under no. 2930 dated 28/05/1994. 5. The marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was solemnized and registered on 28/05/1994 and out of the said marriage, two children were born namely Cyzella Naina Crasto on 05/08/1995 and Cynera Cindy Crasto on 11/04/1997. It was alleged by the plaintiff that after the birth of the first child his relations with the defendant were strained and the defendant had lodged false complaint against him on 04/07/1996 on account of which he was arrested by the police and detained. It was further alleged that the defendant resorted to violence against him for petty reasons due to which he had to avoid the company of the defendant many a times. It was further alleged that after the birth of the first child, when the defendant went to her mother's place for delivery it was learnt that the defendant had friendly relationship with one Remy Paes who started meeting the defendant during her stay at her mother's place and after establishing relationship started meeting her frequently at her house and other places. According to the plaintiff, he caught the defendant red handed at K.T.C. bus stand sitting inside the bus and holding hands on 24/10/2000. According to the plaintiff, he caught the defendant red handed at K.T.C. bus stand sitting inside the bus and holding hands on 24/10/2000. The plaintiff further alleged that ever since then the relationship between him and the defendant got strained and the defendant has been refusing to cohabit with the plaintiff since June, 1997 and after the birth of the second child she has been permanently staying with her parents and has refused to return to the house of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further stated that various attempts were made for amicable settlement but all were in vain. He alleged that on 13/08/1998 the defendant assaulted him at Kadamba bus stand when he questioned her about illicit relationship. The plaintiff also stated that the defendant had abandoned the relationship of marriage and is keen on leading her life of adultery with the said person. 6. By way of Written statement, the defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff and according to her, it was the plaintiff, who was giving trouble to her and who used to continuously beat her for no valid reason due to which she was compelled to lodge several complaints with the police. According to the defendant, she learnt that the plaintiff was staying at Ambora with a female. She further alleged that in April, 1999, she was severely assaulted by the plaintiff and thrown out of the house along with her children and since then she is residing with her parents. She alleged that the plaintiff has affairs with several women and presently is living with one Jenny wife of one Lawry from Quepem and is not willing to give up the said relationship. She alleged that it is the plaintiff, who is entirely responsible for the ruffle in the marriage and that she has not given any cause to the plaintiff to sue for divorce. She stated that there has been no desertion by her. 7. Issues were framed as per the rival contentions of the parties. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and three more witnesses whereas, the defendant examined herself as DW1 and two more witnesses. 8. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao held that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant is broken irrevocably and are treating each other with cruelty and do not have a matrimonial home from April, 1997 onwards. 8. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao held that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant is broken irrevocably and are treating each other with cruelty and do not have a matrimonial home from April, 1997 onwards. The trial Court observed that the defendant says that the plaintiff is staying with some other woman. He held that this amounts to treating the defendant with cruelty. He was of the view that the parties are entitled for divorce under Article 4(4) and (5) of the Law of Divorce. Hence, the suit came to be decreed and the marriage stood dissolved by decree of divorce. Direction was given for issuance of necessary certificate to the parties for cancellation of marriage certificate. 9. It so happens that initially against the impugned judgment dated 18/01/2005 passed by the trial Court, the defendant had filed First Appeal No. 106 of 2005 before this Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, the original suit was amended and an additional ground of de facto separation for 10 years under Article 4(8) of the Law of Divorce was raised by the plaintiff by way of additional pleading. The said additional pleading was that the defendant, since the year 1997, has lived separately from the plaintiff and as there has been de facto separation “freely consented for a period of over ten years”, in terms of Article 4(8) of the Law of Divorce, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce on that ground also. In the additional written statement, the defendant denied the same and reiterated that the separation took place in April, 1999 when the plaintiff assaulted her and threw her out of the matrimonial house along with her children as the plaintiff was living with another lady at Ambora. The defendant specifically alleged that their separation was not out of “free Consent”. She further alleged that when she was forcibly driven out of the house, the plaintiff had threatened her that he will kill her if she entered the matrimonial house again. An additional issue was framed, in that regard. The defendant specifically alleged that their separation was not out of “free Consent”. She further alleged that when she was forcibly driven out of the house, the plaintiff had threatened her that he will kill her if she entered the matrimonial house again. An additional issue was framed, in that regard. Hence, in the said First Appeal No. 106 of 2005, the matter was remanded to the trial Court to give finding on the said additional issue i.e. ”Whether the ground under clause 8 of Article 4 of the Law of Divorce is established by the petitioner?” Accordingly, the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao recorded further evidence of the parties and after hearing them, by order dated 29/12/2010, decided the said additional issue in the negative by holding that there was no sufficient evidence to establish free consent on the part of the defendant in de facto separation for a period of 10 years. During the pendency of the First Appeal No. 106/2005 before this Court, the Goa Civil Courts Act came to be amended and the matter stood transferred to the District Court, Margao and came to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 65/2011. 10. The learned Adhoc District Judge I, FTC-I, South Goa, Margao, in the said Regular Civil appeal No.65/2011, held that the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit and granting divorce to the parties by judgment and decree dated 18/01/2005. However, the First appellate Court held that the trial Court rightly passed the order dated 29/12/2010 stating that the plaintiff has failed to prove the ground under clause (8) of Article 4 of the Law of Divorce. She therefore allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 18/01/2005 passed in the Marriage Petition and dismissed the said Marriage Petition. Hence, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 11. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff took me through the amended plaint wherein it has been specifically stated by the plaintiff that in the year 1997, the defendant left the matrimonial home and went to live with her mother and that the plaintiff and the defendant have been de facto separated since then and that the defendant had admitted that from the year 1999, there has been a de facto separation. It is further averred in paragraph no. It is further averred in paragraph no. 15(B) of the plaint that as such, there has been de facto separation freely consented for a period of 10 consecutive years, whatever may be the cause of such separation. He then pointed out that in the additional written statement filed by the defendant the above has been simply denied and it is stated that there has been no de facto separation freely consented for a period of over 10 years in terms of Article 4 (8) of the Law of Divorce. He then took me through the evidence of the parties. According to him, the evidence of the plaintiff was not at all shaken in the cross-examination. He submitted that though the defendant stated that in the month of April, 1999, the plaintiff came to the matrimonial house and assaulted her and threw her out of the house along with the children, however, no police complaint has been produced on record. He further submitted that admittedly the defendant did not file any suit for restitution of conjugal rights. He pointed out from the cross-examination of DW1 that she and the plaintiff are not staying together from April, 1999 and that she had left the house of the plaintiff and is residing with her parents. According to him, there is no evidence at all to establish that the plaintiff does not want to stay with the defendant. He urged that the defendant could not prove that the said de facto separation was not freely consented. He submitted that the additional issue regarding the ground under Article 4 (8) of the Law of Divorce has been answered in the negative by the trial Court without any basis and that from the conduct of the defendant itself, free consent for de facto separation is established. He, therefore, submitted that the findings of the Lower Court as well as of the First Appellate Court on the said additional issue are totally perverse. He further submitted that the evidence on record is not at all sufficient to prove that the plaintiff was having illicit relationship with any woman and that the finding of the First Appellate Court on this point is therefore erverse. He therefore urged that the present Second Appeal is bound to succeed. 12. He further submitted that the evidence on record is not at all sufficient to prove that the plaintiff was having illicit relationship with any woman and that the finding of the First Appellate Court on this point is therefore erverse. He therefore urged that the present Second Appeal is bound to succeed. 12. On the contrary, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submitted that no question of law, forget about any substantial question of law, arising in this appeal, has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff. She submitted that there is on record a birth certificate in respect of birth of one Cynola Valanki Crasto wherein the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as her father. She pointed out that there is no dispute that Deodita Jennifer Crasto is the mother of said Cynola. According to her, therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiff is having illicit relationship with another lady by name Deodita Jennifer Crasto. She pointed out from the evidence that there is no evidence to establish that the plaintiff personally had made any attempts to bring the defendant back to her matrimonial house, after she was assaulted and thrown out. According to her, in fact, he was never ready to bring her back home though she was willing to go back. The learned Counsel thus urged that in such circumstances, the concurrent finding of the Lower Courts to the effect that no conclusion can be drawn that the parties are staying separately out of free consent for more than 10 years cannot at all said to be perverse or erroneous. Relying upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in Second Appeal No. 20 of 2002, the learned Counsel submitted that it was for the plaintiff to establish free consent on the part of the parties in respect of separation for 10 years, which the plaintiff has failed to do. She, therefore, submitted that since no substantial question of law arises in the appeal, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. She, therefore, submitted that since no substantial question of law arises in the appeal, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have gone through the material produced by the plaintiff on record in this second appeal with the assistance of learned Counsel for both the parties and after consideration of the same, in the light of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, I have no hesitation to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant that the concurrent finding of the Lower Courts to the effect that there is no de facto separation freely consented for a period of 10 years, is based on correct appreciation of the entire evidence on record. 14. Admittedly, there is on record the birth certificate of Cynola Valanki Crasto wherein the name of the plaintiff is written as her father. There is no dispute that Cynola is the daughter of Deodita Jennifer Crasto, who is a widow. The plaintiff, in his cross-examination, has stated that his name is shown as father since he has adopted Cynola as his daughter. There is no document of adoption. It is to be kept in mind that the plaintiff and defendant have two daughters. It is therefore difficult to believe that the plaintiff would adopt the daughter. In the circumstances above, there could not be any other conclusion than the one drawn by the learned First Appellate Court to the effect that the plaintiff is having illicit relationship with Deodita Jennifer Crasto and out of their relationship, a baby girl has been born on 24/08/2007 at Goa Medical College, Bambolim. In his cross-examination, after amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff has clearly stated that he is not ready to take the defendant for staying with him together. The defendant in her affidavit-in-evidence has specifically stated that she is willing and ready to return back to her matrimonial house along with the daughters and that she does not wish to give divorce to the plaintiff but the plaintiff wants divorce in order to get married again. She has further specifically stated in her affidavit-in-evidence that she did not leave the matrimonial house with her wishes but she was thrown out by the plaintiff after assaulting her. She has further specifically stated in her affidavit-in-evidence that she did not leave the matrimonial house with her wishes but she was thrown out by the plaintiff after assaulting her. Though no police complaint in this regard has been produced on record, however, it is stated by the defendant that she had lodged a police complaint in this regard. There is no dispute that the defendant had filed several complaints against the plaintiff though it is a fact that according to the plaintiff these are all false complaints. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had threatened to kill her if she enters the matrimonial house. The defendant has also stated that she does not wish to enter that house because the plaintiff has been living with another lady from Ambora. It cannot be expected that the defendant would suffer another woman in the relationship of her husband, staying in the matrimonial house. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that de facto separation is on account of free consent by the defendant. 15. Merely by showing that the couple is separated for a continuous period of 10 years, the same is not sufficient. In order to get a decree of divorce under clause 8 of Article 4 of the Law of Divorce, as applicable to Goa, de facto separation must be freely consented by both the parties for 10 consecutive years whatever may be the cause of separation. In the case of "Mr. Shaikh Camruddin alia Xeque Camrudin v/s. Mrs. Zarinabi Sheikh Camruddin alia Zarin Begaun” (Second Appeal No. 20 of 2002) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the defendant, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that in order to get a decree of divorce under clause 8 of Article 4 of the Law of divorce, the parties seeking divorce must establish free consent on the part of both the parties in respect of separation for 10 years. I am in respectful agreement with the above. 16. In view of the discussion supra, I do not at all find any perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by both the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff could not establish freely consented de facto separation for 10 years. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.