JUDGMENT : N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J. 1. This appeal filed by the wife under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, takes exception to the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. A794 of 2010, thereby granting a decree of judicial separation in favour of the husband. 2. Facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are as follows : The husband filed petition under section 10 and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the said Act”) against the wife contending that their marriage was solemnized on 26-6-2009 at Nagpur, as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. Before the marriage, the husband had passed B.Sc. B.Ed and he was in the service of Pharmaceuticals Company and had a touring job and the same was informed to the family of the wife. It was also informed that the husband may be required to go out of the station for his job and at some times, he might come home late. The husband was residing along with his retired father and mother. The wife’s side informed that she had obtained B.H.M.S. Degree and she was doing the job at Care Hospital, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur and was earning a salary at Rs.8,000/- per month. The wife had given her bio-data in her own handwriting, wherein her date of birth was mentioned as 30-11-1973. The husband’s date of birth was 20-8-1973. After the marriage, the wife started residing in the joint family of the husband. They went to Pachmarhi for honeymoon and everything was normal. The wife was doing household work and she was also attending her job at Care Hospital. There was no complaint upto three months from the marriage. The husband’s sister Kiran used to come to the house of the husband for tailoring work as her house was very small. She used to come at 11.00 a.m. with her own tiffin and used to leave at 5.00 p.m. During that period, the wife used to be on duty at Care Hospital, therefore, there was no communication between Kiran and the wife. Arti, the daughter of the elder sister of the husband was taking the education of LLB in Ambedkar College, Dikshabhoomi, Nagpur and she was staying in the house of the husband from July, 2010. The wife was not liking Kiran and Arti’s presence in the house. Arti, the daughter of the elder sister of the husband was taking the education of LLB in Ambedkar College, Dikshabhoomi, Nagpur and she was staying in the house of the husband from July, 2010. The wife was not liking Kiran and Arti’s presence in the house. Initially, the wife was contributing Rs.2,000/- per month towards family expenses, but after three months of the marriage, she stopped the contribution. It was further contended that from October, 2009, the wife’s conduct became abnormal. She started quarreling with the husband. After coming from duty, she used to straightway go to her bedroom and used to lock it from inside. She was not responding to the family members. The parents and brother of the wife were informed about her abnormal conduct. The wife’s brother came and used arrogant language towards the husband and his family members. Her brother alleged that the husband was not mentally and physically sound to keep marital relations with wife, because of which, the wife did not conceive. He blamed the husband’s sister Kiran for the same. At that time, Kiran was staying in the house of the husband, as she had suffered an accident. The wife’s brother warned that if Kiran did not go away within two days, he would throw her luggage out. He also threatened to lodge police complaint against the husband and his family members. In the meanwhile, the wife conceived. However, the fetus was suffering from cardiac problems, hence Dr. Shembhekar suggested abortion. He also suggested to abstain from sexual relations upto six months. He advised them to consult Dr. Sanjay Deshpande for counselling on sex education. The husband therefore consulted Dr. Deshpande. He further contended that due to abortion, the wife was mentally disturbed. She used to unnecessarily quarrel with the husband’s family members. She used to force the husband to have sexual relations saying that she wanted the child at the earliest. The husband was avoiding sexual relations as per the advice of the Doctor. When the husband saw the medical papers of the wife, he noticed that it was mentioned in the medical papers that due to age factor, the wife should conceive early. The husband therefore asked her about her date of birth. He then came to know that her birth date was 30-11-1971 and she was two years elder than him. When the husband saw the medical papers of the wife, he noticed that it was mentioned in the medical papers that due to age factor, the wife should conceive early. The husband therefore asked her about her date of birth. He then came to know that her birth date was 30-11-1971 and she was two years elder than him. The wife told her father-in-law that she wanted divorce from the husband on 2-4-2010 and in the first week of May, 2010. He contended that in fact from 4-5-2010, the wife started sleeping in another room and restrained the husband from entering that room. She stopped talking with him and the family members. She started preparing food only for herself and she stopped taking part in household work and religious programmes. She threatened him and the family members to implicate them in cases under section 498A and under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The wife also extended threats that she would commit suicide. On 28-9-2010, the wife asked the husband that if his sister Kiran and niece Arti would not leave the house permanently within a day, she would lodge a complaint in the Police Station. The husband informed about the said threats to Rana Pratap Nagar Police Station. During Diwali on 13-10-2010, the wife did not participate in Laxmi Pujan, she also tried to disturb the Puja. On that day, mother-in-law of the wife prepared food for all the family members, but the wife threw the entire food in the dustbin outside the house. On 18-11-2010, the wife lodged a complaint under section 498A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband and his family members due to which, they were arrested and after they were produced before the learned J.M.F.C. Court, they were released on bail. The husband thereafter attended the Court counsellor and before the Hitguj Mahila Mandal. The Husband contended that the counselling could not succeed due to arrogant behavior of the wife and her demand that she wanted the house property in her name for giving divorce. On 2-1-2011, the wife woke up early in the morning and directly went in the bedroom of her in-laws and started searching something. When the mother-in-law enquired, she told that she was searching for tooth pest. The wife suddenly started quarreling and abusing mother-in-law and gave her dash because of which, the mother-in-law sustained injury. On 2-1-2011, the wife woke up early in the morning and directly went in the bedroom of her in-laws and started searching something. When the mother-in-law enquired, she told that she was searching for tooth pest. The wife suddenly started quarreling and abusing mother-in-law and gave her dash because of which, the mother-in-law sustained injury. When the husband tried to help his mother, the wife took a chair in her hand and tried to beat the husband, due to which he also sustained injury. When the neighbors gathered to save the husband and his family members, the wife threatened to involve them in the criminal cases. This incident was informed by the husband to Pratap Nagar Police Station. The wife also filed case of this incident and offence under sections 323, 294, 506B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Again the husband and his parents were produced before the learned J.M.F.C. and were released on bail. From 3-12011, the wife had taken independent possession of the bedroom and started to lock it whenever she left home. She was giving mental trouble to the respondent and his family members. The wife was not following any timings while leaving home and coming back. Sometimes, she did not return home for 23 days. The husband and his family members were apprehending that the wife may implicate them so as to harass them. The wife wanted house property transferred in her name, therefore she was harassing the husband and his family members physically, mentally, economically and socially. Even the neighbors were afraid of keeping relations with the husband and his family members. On these contentions, the husband prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and in the alternate, he prayed for a decree of judicial separation to avoid further complications. 3. The wife opposed the petition by fling written statement (Exh.19A) and denied all the allegations. She claimed that the husband had not made out any ground for a decree of divorce. She contended that the husband and his family members had the knowledge that her birth date was 30-11-1971. Considering her qualification and salary, the husband and his family members agreed for the marriage though the wife was elder than the husband. She contended that after three months of marriage, the husband, in-laws, sister-in-law Kiran and niece Arti started illtreating her. She contended that the husband and his family members had the knowledge that her birth date was 30-11-1971. Considering her qualification and salary, the husband and his family members agreed for the marriage though the wife was elder than the husband. She contended that after three months of marriage, the husband, in-laws, sister-in-law Kiran and niece Arti started illtreating her. On account of demand of her entire salary, they used to mentally and physically harass her. When the ill treatment went beyond her tolerance limit, she lodged the complaints with Rana Pratap Nagar Police Station on 27-9-2010 and 28-9-2010. Since the harassment continued, thereafter she lodged FIR No. 235 of 2010 on 5-10-2010 for offence punishable under sections 498A, 506B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. With a view to give counter blast to the said complaints, the husband started creating documentary evidence by lodging false complaint against her. On 2-1-2010, in the morning, when the wife went to take toothpaste from Almirah, her mother-in-law came and stopped her from taking toothpaste. When the wife told her that she had every right to reside in the matrimonial home, the husband came there and abused her and asked her to leave the matrimonial home. On her refusal, she was beaten by the husband. Therefore, she was constrained to lodge a report to Rana Pratap Nagar Police Station, which was registered at Crime No. 3008 of 2011 under sections 294, 323, 506B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The wife claimed that she was staying in the matrimonial home with a hope that someday the husband would realize his mistakes and the marital relations would improve. She therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The learned Family Court after recording the evidence though denied the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, passed a decree of judicial separation in favour of the husband. Hence, the present appeal by the wife. 5. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned advocate for the respondent. 6. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that when the Family Court had come to the conclusion that the husband had failed to prove the cruelty on the basis of the same evidence, the Family Court could not have passed the decree of judicial separation. 5. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned advocate for the respondent. 6. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that when the Family Court had come to the conclusion that the husband had failed to prove the cruelty on the basis of the same evidence, the Family Court could not have passed the decree of judicial separation. According to him, there is no material on record to justify the impugned decree of judicial separation. He further submitted that taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Family Court ought to have dismissed the petition filed by the husband as no case was made out by the husband for decree of divorce or for judicial separation. According to him, the Family Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and has recorded incorrect findings. He therefore submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the decision of the Family Court. The learned advocate for the appellant in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: 1) A. K. vs. S. S. K., 2019(2) JCC 1188, 2) Mamta vs. Manjit, 2019(2) PLR 264 , 3) Mamta Singh Thakur w/o Chitrabhuwan Singh Thakur vs. Chitrabhuwan Singh Thakur s/o Ramlal Singh Thakur, 2017(4) Civil L.J. 825. 7. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent supported the decision of the Family Court by submitting that the material on record shows that repeated complaints were lodged by the appellant against the respondent and his family members and they were harassed. It is clear from the evidence that the appellant and the respondent are not compatible with each other and their marriage appears to be irretrievably broken. He submitted that the trial Court has given proper reasoning and it was justified in granting the decree of judicial separation in the peculiar facts of the present case. He therefore stated that there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and the learned advocate for the respondent at length and we have perused the record. 9. Considering the rival contentions, following points arise for determination : i) Whether the judgment of the Family Court granting a judicial separation is legally correct ? 8. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and the learned advocate for the respondent at length and we have perused the record. 9. Considering the rival contentions, following points arise for determination : i) Whether the judgment of the Family Court granting a judicial separation is legally correct ? ii) Whether the learned Family Court was justified in granting a decree of judicial separation in favour of the respondent when his case of divorce on the ground of cruelty was rejected ? iii) What order ? 10. To consider the issue involved, it is necessary to appreciate the evidence on record. The husband examined himself in support of his claim. He deposed in terms of his pleadings. In the cross, he admitted the complaints lodged by the wife against him and his family members under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He stated that as sometimes Police used to avoid taking complaints, therefore he forwarded the said complaints to the Police by Post. He also admitted the complaints lodged by the wife to Pratap Nagar Police Station under sections 294, 506B and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He could not give any reason, as to why, he did not mention about cheating on the part of the wife and her parents by giving her incorrect birth date and why that was not mentioned in his report Exh 30 dated 4-10-2010. He denied that prior to the marriage, he had knowledge that the wife’s birth date was 30-11-1971. He denied to have made detail enquiry about the wife before the marriage. He deposed that he had believed on the information given by the wife’s family, therefore he had not made any enquiries. He denied the suggestions that his sister Kiran and niece Arti used to interfere in their married life and they used to harass the wife. He claimed to have accompanied the wife for treatment during pregnancy, but he stated that he did not have any document to show that the wife was unable to deliver the child. He denied the suggestion that the wife was able to conceive and deliver a child. He further stated that he had provided financial help to the wife for 4 5 times. After fling of the petition, he stopped providing financial help to the wife. He denied the suggestion that the wife was able to conceive and deliver a child. He further stated that he had provided financial help to the wife for 4 5 times. After fling of the petition, he stopped providing financial help to the wife. Since the wife was residing in his house, she was using entire facilities available in the house. He further deposed that evenafter fling of the petition, he had voluntarily and willingly provided necessary, articles, clothes and medicines to the wife. According to him, it was in the form of help to the wife. He denied the suggestion that all the complaints filed by him, were filed after consultation with his advocate. He admitted that the wife had lodged complaint against him before Mahila Cell and he received notice of the same. He also admitted that the said complaint was lodged before fling of the divorce petition and that prior to the said complaint, he did not file any complaint against the wife or her family members in the Police Station. He denied that with a view to give counter blast to the complaint of the wife, after thought, he started lodging complaints. He stated that Exh30 was his first complaint against the wife and her brother. He had given handwritten complaint to the Police, but the Police had written the same in their own language. He deposed that he had mentioned all his complaints against the wife in his handwritten report, but the said report was kept by the Police with them. He denied that as there was no ill treatment to him at the hands of the wife, therefore he had not mentioned about any such complaint in his report and therefore he had not produced copy of the handwritten report. He denied that all the complaints lodged by him were false and police have not registered any offence on the basis of his reports Exhs34 and 35. He did not know whether the Police had registered any offence against the wife on the basis of his reports Exhs31, 41, 44, 47, 48, 50, 59, 64, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90, 106, 107, 108, 110, and 113. He denied that he created false documentary evidence to give counterblast to the complaints of the wife. He did not know whether the Police had registered any offence against the wife on the basis of his reports Exhs31, 41, 44, 47, 48, 50, 59, 64, 66, 69, 72, 75, 78, 81, 84, 87, 90, 106, 107, 108, 110, and 113. He denied that he created false documentary evidence to give counterblast to the complaints of the wife. He admitted that he did not file any private complaint in respect of all his police complaints and that in order to save himself from the prosecution under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, he had filed the divorce case. He admitted that he did not take any written opinion of Medical Expert about the wife’s inability to conceive. He volunteered that he had taken oral opinion from the Medical Expert. He was not sure whether he was going to examine the said expert or not ? He admitted that he did not take any medical opinion about the wife’s inability to conceive. He admitted that at the time of marriage proposal, he informed the wife’s parents that he was M.Sc., but it was a fact that at that time he had not completed M.Sc. He admitted that the wife had asked him to prepare marriage certificate and for that purpose, she had filled up entire form and handed over the relevant documents to him. He admitted that till the date of deposition, their marriage was not registered. He denied that he and his family members were insisting the wife to abort the child. He admitted that the wife had been to hospital of Dr. Shembhekar for her treatment and Dr. Shembhekar opined that the cardiac activity of the fetus was absent. He denied the suggestions in respect of giving ill treatment to the wife. 11. The mother of the husband, Sau. Sakuntala Bangde was examined as PW2. She deposed on the same lines of the husband. She deposed that the wife used to abuse her by calling her Kamini, Sali, Haramkhor, Buddhi, Choukidar, Satimai, Chetkin, etc. and similar abuses were heard by her husband. The wife used to call her father-in-law as Sala Buddha, Haramkhor, Napunsak, Namard, etc. 12. In the cross-examination, she deposed that she had informed the incidents mentioned in her evidence of affidavit to the husband. and similar abuses were heard by her husband. The wife used to call her father-in-law as Sala Buddha, Haramkhor, Napunsak, Namard, etc. 12. In the cross-examination, she deposed that she had informed the incidents mentioned in her evidence of affidavit to the husband. She did not remember her date of marriage, but she stated that it was her second marriage and the husband was begotten from the first marriage of her husband and she was step mother of the husband. She admitted that from her both marriages, she had no issue. She admitted to have visited the wife’s maternal home prior to the marriage and having a detail talk with her parents. She claimed that she did not see the wife’s documents about education. She did not know that due to emergency, the Doctor and the staff had to stay in the hospital even beyond working hours. She further stated that the wife used to wake up about 6.30 a.m. and after taking bath, she used to prepare her lunch tiffin. Initially, during her leave period, the wife used to cook breakfast, lunch and dinner for all the family members. The wife used to go for duty at about 8.00 a.m. and there were no fixed timing of her return. Even the husband had no fixed timing and he was required to go on tour for 3 4 days in a week. She admitted, the wife lodged reports against them in the Police Station as well as at Mahila Cell. She admitted that she had never taken the wife to the hospital at any time. She denied the suggestions that she, her daughter and Arti used to ill treat the wife and used to interfere in their marital life. She admitted that since the time of the marriage, the wife was residing in the same room. She denied other suggestions. 13. The wife examined herself and deposed in terms of her written statement. During the cross-examination, she deposed that at the time of marriage proposal, she had given her bio-data to the husband. She denied that she had given handwritten bio-data and volunteered that she had given only printed bio-data. She stated that her details were mentioned in the bio-data Exh119, but it was not in her handwriting. She admitted to have enrolled her name in the marriage bureau and that her birth date was 30-11-1971. She denied that she had given handwritten bio-data and volunteered that she had given only printed bio-data. She stated that her details were mentioned in the bio-data Exh119, but it was not in her handwriting. She admitted to have enrolled her name in the marriage bureau and that her birth date was 30-11-1971. She also admitted that in the bio-data given by her to the marriage bureau, her birth date was mentioned as 30-11-1972. She volunteered that she had not given/mentioned the said date of birth. She admitted that the husband was 1½ year younger than her. She deposed that after the marriage for 4 5 months, her duty was between 12.00 O’clock to 8.00 p.m. and thereafter, it was 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. She denied the suggestions that her sister-in-law was doing stitching work at the wife’s matrimonial home between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and she was carrying tiffin. She also denied that only for few months niece Arti had stayed in their house and that she was doing entire household work. She denied that she and her brother insisted for driving away sister-in-law Kiran and niece Arti from the matrimonial home. She admitted that at the time of Diwali festival of 2009, her father had given some cash to the husband for purchasing new clothes. She also admitted that the husband had returned the said amount to her father. She admitted her pregnancy and the advice given by the Doctor for abortion, as the fetus had no heart beats. At that time, the husband had given consent for abortion. She denied that Dr. Shembhekar advised them not to keep sexual relations for six months. She admitted that they were referred to Dr. Sanjay Deshpande by Dr. Shembhekar. She, however, denied that Dr. S. Deshpande advised them for not keeping physical relations for six months. She denied that she used to force the husband to keep physical relations and on that ground used to quarrel with him. She denied that on 2-4-2010, she told her father-in-law that she wanted a divorce and since that date, she had not permitted the husband to enter her bedroom. She admitted that she used to lock the bedroom while going on duty, she started the said practice since January 2011. She admitted to have lodged complaints under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband. She admitted that she used to lock the bedroom while going on duty, she started the said practice since January 2011. She admitted to have lodged complaints under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband. She denied that the arrest of the husband and his neighbors was celebrated by her and her maternal relatives. She denied the suggestion that on 2-1-2011, she entered in the room of in-laws and was checking their Almirah and thereafter, she quarreled with them, at that time, she pushed the mother-in-law due to which, her mother-in-law fell down. She also denied that at that time on arrival of the husband, she had beaten him and torn his clothes. She denied that at that time, the neighbors Mr. Nigot and Mrs. Mukadam arrived there. The wife volunteered that the husband had called them. She denied that Mr. Nigot and Mrs. Mukadam gave her understanding and therefore she quarreled with them. She denied that the alleged incident on that date took place between 7.30 to 8.30 a.m. She volunteered that the incident took place between 8.00 to 8.30 p.m. She admitted that the husband had reported the incident to the police and on the same day she lodged a report against the husband and his family members. She admitted that the criminal prosecutions are pending in the Court against the husband. She admitted that she and her brother obtained anticipatory bail in respect of the report lodged by the husband and that one prosecution is pending against her and her brother in the Court. She denied in the incident dated 2-1-2011, her mother-in-law sustained injury on her head and she was referred for medical examination. She denied that she had mentally and physically tortured the husband and his family members and that all the reports lodged by the husband against her were true and correct. 14. On careful appreciation of the evidence on record, it is revealed that vague and general allegations of cruelty were levelled by the respondent against the appellant. Merely giving a false date of birth does not in any manner establish cruelty. 14. On careful appreciation of the evidence on record, it is revealed that vague and general allegations of cruelty were levelled by the respondent against the appellant. Merely giving a false date of birth does not in any manner establish cruelty. In view of admissions of the respondent that for registration of marriage, the appellant had duly filled the form and handed over relevant documents to the respondent, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent that before marriage a false birth date was given by the appellant. Though the respondent denied that their marriage was settled with the intervention of Badwaik Marriage Bureau, he has admitted that his name was registered in that marriage bureau. The appellant has also specifically stated that her name was registered in Badwaik Marriage Bureau. In view of these circumstances on record, it is difficult to believe the case of the respondent that the appellant gave a false date of birth. Apart from the fact, that by itself, in absence of any other material does not prove cruelty. 15. The contentions of the respondent in respect of his abstinence from sexual relations for six months, on medical advice are not substantiated. He has neither produced any documentary evidence nor examined doctor to prove those contentions. On the contrary he admitted that the appellant brought certificate from Dr. Deshpande that she was fit for sexual intercourse. His contention that he was avoiding sexual intercourse on medical advice cannot be accepted in these circumstances. The insistence on the part of the appellant for sexual relations can not be termed as cruelty. No fault can be found with the expectation of the wife to have healthy sexual relations with the husband which can be said to be natural human conduct on the part of the wife. This expectation by no stretch of imagination can be termed as cruelty. 16. The contentions of the respondent that the appellant used to stay away from the family without informing either him or the family members and her duty hours were not regular are also unacceptable. Admittedly, even prior to the marriage, the appellant was doing the job at Care Hospital. Being a Doctor serving in a hospital, her duty hours were not fixed and many times, she was required to stay beyond the duty hours for attending the emergency cases. Admittedly, even prior to the marriage, the appellant was doing the job at Care Hospital. Being a Doctor serving in a hospital, her duty hours were not fixed and many times, she was required to stay beyond the duty hours for attending the emergency cases. She was also required to go to the hospital at any time for attending the emergency situation. Anyway this does not make out cruelty on the part of appellant towards the respondent. This fact was known to the respondent and his family members. Even the respondent had no fixed duty hours and he used to come late in the night from duty and he was required to go out of station 3 4 days a week, therefore, those contentions were not available to the respondent. 17. The other allegations of the respondent that the appellant was not cooking food, she had thrown the food cooked by his mother in the dustbin, etc, those are also not believable in view of the admissions given by his mother PW 2. She admitted that initially while on leave, the appellant used to cook breakfast, lunch and dinner for all the family members. The appellant used to wake up at about 6.30 a.m. and after taking bath, she used to prepare her lunch tiffin and she used to carry the same. PW2 also deposed that the husband used to inform her about happening of good things in his married life. The allegations of the respondent that the appellant was not cooking food for the family, she was not liking presence of sister-in-law Kiran and niece Arti in the house etc. are normal wear and tear of married life. The said allegations are of general nature and they do not in any manner spell out cruelty. Merely because the appellant had lodged complaints under section 498A in the Police Station that itself would not be a ground of cruelty. Admittedly, the respondent has forwarded number of complaints to the police authorities, it appears that only with a view to give counter blast to the complaints under section 498A lodged by the appellant. Thus, the respondent failed to make out a ground of cruelty in his evidence before the learned Family Court. 18. The learned Family Court after considering the evidence on record has rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent failed to make out the ground of cruelty. Thus, the respondent failed to make out a ground of cruelty in his evidence before the learned Family Court. 18. The learned Family Court after considering the evidence on record has rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent failed to make out the ground of cruelty. It was observed that the evidence of the respondent and his mother Shakuntala was inconsitant with each other and there was variance in their evidence. The learned Family Court, therefore, denied the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty to the respondent. The learned Family Court was right in denying decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. These findings have not been challenged by the respondent. 19. The learned Family Court has taken into consideration the report of marriage counsellor who was asked to visit the house of the respondent and to inspect the premises. The report Exh150A indicated that there was no electricity and water in the kitchen. There was dust on the kitchen platform and dinning table. The fridge was locked and was not in use. The learned Family Court noted that PW2 deposed that the appellant was cooking food on induction gas in her own room. The respondent was not fetching gas cylinder under apprehension that the appellant would use it. There was no water and electricity in the bathroom and the toilet. According to the learned Family Court, it showed that the relationship between the parties had been irretrievably broken down, but that could not be a ground to dissolve the marriage. The learned Family Court, however, recorded a finding that “it is difficult to the parties to cohabit together and that they may not adjust with each other, a decree of judicial separation can be passed so as to avoid the complications” and hence proceeded to grant a judicial separation. 20. In the present matter, the question therefore arises that if the Court after appreciating the evidence comes to a conclusion that a spouse is not entitled for a decree of divorce then, whether on the basis of same evidence, the Court would be justified in granting a decree of judicial separation? At this stage, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions in the context of the facts of the present case ; “10. At this stage, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions in the context of the facts of the present case ; “10. Judicial Separation.—(1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1) of section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented. (2) Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the Court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.” 13. Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party — (i) ……….. (ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; “13A. Alternative relief in divorce proceedings.—In any proceeding under this Act, on a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, except insofar as the petition is founded on the grounds mentioned in clauses (ii), (vi) and (vii) of subsection (1) of section 13, the Court may, if it considers it just so to do having regard to the circumstances of the case, pass instead a decree for judicial separation.” Section 13A grants a discretion to the Court having regard to the circumstances of the case to pass a decree for judicial separation instead of passing a decree for divorce. Hence, if the Court on the basis of evidence comes to a conclusion that the decree of divorce can be passed, instead of passing the decree of divorce having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court may pass a decree of judicial separation. Section 13A confers discretion on the Court which needs to be exercised in judicious manner. Under Hindu Law, marriage is a sacrament and it is not dissolved easily. Section 13A confers discretion on the Court which needs to be exercised in judicious manner. Under Hindu Law, marriage is a sacrament and it is not dissolved easily. There has to be cogent and reliable proof in support of the grounds mentioned in section 13 for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage. If the Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled for decree of divorce, it can not in the alternate grant, a decree for judicial separation in absence of any evidence led by the parties, merely for asking. 21. The Court would be entitled to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner by granting him a decree for judicial separation only in the event, the petitioner proves his case for decree of divorce and the Court finds him entitled for the decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned in section 13. Conjoint reading of sections 10, 13 and 13A, makes it clear that a discretion is given to the Court to grant alternate relief of judicial separation in the event, the petitioner makes out a case for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage/divorce in his favour. It is only then that the Court can exercise discretion taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and instead of passing a decree of divorce, pass a decree of judicial separation. 22. The issue in the present case is of propriety on the part of the learned Family Court in granting such alternate relief in absence of any material to justify the grant of such relief. Coming to the facts of the case in hand, the learned Family Court rejected the prayer of the respondent for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, by coming to the conclusion that he has failed to prove the cruelty. In the Family Court, the parties did not lead any evidence in respect of judicial separation. Thus in absence of any material on record, the learned Family Court granted a decree of judicial separation in favour of the respondent, merely for asking. The learned Family Court has misread and misconstrued the provisions of sections 10, 13 and 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and has erred in granting decree of judicial separation particularly in the light of the finding that the respondent failed to prove his case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The learned Family Court has misread and misconstrued the provisions of sections 10, 13 and 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and has erred in granting decree of judicial separation particularly in the light of the finding that the respondent failed to prove his case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The material on record indicates that the allegations made by the respondent against the appellant were vague and general and at the most they can be termed as normal wear and tear of married life. Admittedly, the appellant is staying in the matrimonial home. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for the learned Family Court to abruptly come to a conclusion that it was difficult for the parties to cohabit together and therefore the decree of judicial separation was required to be passed to avoid complications. The said findings of the learned Family Court are based on wrong interpretation of relevant provisions as well as wrong appreciation of evidence on record. The learned Family Court has drawn unwarranted inferences. 23. The learned Family Court has failed to take into consideration the object behind introduction of the provision of judicial separation. The provision of judicial separation was introduced in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with an object of taking into consideration the high ideals of the Hindu Community about marriage and with an object that divorce should not be easily granted. It was introduced so as to provide maximum opportunities to the parties for mutual adjustment and the decree of judicial separation is to be granted only if the grounds specified in sub section (1) of section 13 are made out. 24. A useful reference can be made to the observations of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in Prabhakar S. Nikam vs. Satyabhama P. Nikam, AIR 2008 Bombay 129, wherein section 13A was interpreted in the context of decree of judicial separation. It was held : “This section cannot be interpreted to mean that the Court can or ought to grant a decree for judicial separation where it cannot or does not grant decree for divorce. If the section is interpreted in the way as suggested, every petition may either end in a decree for divorce or judicial separation. There would be no occasion to dismiss the petition for divorce at all. If the section is interpreted in the way as suggested, every petition may either end in a decree for divorce or judicial separation. There would be no occasion to dismiss the petition for divorce at all. The Legislature certainly did not intend to grant decree for judicial separation even where no ground for divorce was made out. Therefore, to my mind, the section has to be interpreted differently. What section envisages is that even where ground for divorce is made out, the Court may refuse decree for divorce and instead grant a decree for judicial separation. Therefore, essentially the appellant must first make out a ground for divorce and then the Court may exercise its discretion to grant decree for judicial separation or a decree for divorce. When no ground is at all made out, there could be no occasion to use the discretion. In the instant case, we have found that the finding on issue of desertion and cruelty has gone against the appellant/petitioner and that has assumed finality. There, therefore, exists no ground for divorce. Necessarily, therefore, the Court cannot exercise the discretion of granting decree for judicial separation.” We are in respectful agreement with the above observations and we affirm the above view. If we apply the above ratio to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the impugned judgment of the learned Family Court cannot be sustained. 25. In the light of the aforestated discussion, we are of the considered view that the learned Family Court was justified in denying a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty to the respondent. The learned Family Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent had failed to prove cruelty at the hands of the appellant. But according to us, the learned Family Court mis-directed it self in granting a decree of judicial separation in favour of the respondent. Admittedly, the respondent has not challenged the finding of the learned Family Court that he was not entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said finding therefore against him has become final. In that view of the matter, also since the respondent had not made out a case for the decree of judicial separation, the learned Family Court erred in granting the decree of judicial separation in favour of the respondent. We therefore answer the point Nos. The said finding therefore against him has become final. In that view of the matter, also since the respondent had not made out a case for the decree of judicial separation, the learned Family Court erred in granting the decree of judicial separation in favour of the respondent. We therefore answer the point Nos. (i) and (ii) accordingly. 26. We therefore pass the following order : i) The Family Court Appeal No. 40 of 2016 is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment of the learned Family Court is hereby set aside. iii) Petition No. A794 of 2010 filed by the respondent husband is hereby dismissed. iv) Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.