P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J.

1. These two appeals preferred by the wife in a matrimonial dispute have emanated out of a common Judgment and Decree dated 20.1.2011 in M.C. No. 98/2003 and M.C. No. 1/2008 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru.

2. MFA No. 3500/2011 is directed against the Judgment and Decree in M.C. No. 1/2008 and MFA No. 3501/2011 against the Judgment and Decree in M.C. No. 98/2003.

3. Brief facts of the case:

"Appellant and respondent were married at St. Francis Xavier's Church, Bejai, Mangaluru on 16.5.1999. Appellant stayed with the respondent till 4.1.2000. Marriage was not consummated."

Appellant got a legal notice dated 26.4.2002 alleging that after marriage she learnt that the respondent had an amorous relationship with a servant girl called Saroja and his niece Sylvia; that respondent was giving more prominence to the servant girl and when questioned, he used to shout at her; that she apprehended imminent danger to her life and having no other option left for her parents' house on 4.1.2000. With these said allegations, respondent was called upon through the legal notice to take her back into his house, to terminate the services of servant girl and to part ways with Sylvia.

Respondent got the legal notice replied as per Ex. P3 stating that the notice was issued as a counter blast after he had initiated proceedings for annulment of marriage before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal. Further, allegations contained in the notice were denied and it was asserted that the appellant had left the matrimonial home on 4.1.2000 on her own volition; that the appellant did not bother to attend the funeral service of respondent's father. It was also asserted that the respondent having come to know of health problems got appellant treated for Dental & Skin problems. Based on the medical advice not to have physical relation and not to conceive, there was no physical relation between the parties. Adverting to the allegations of his relation with Sylvia, it was stated that she was his first cousin and employed in his shop for the last over 20 years. It was also alleged in the reply that within a week from marriage, appellant was demanding for a share in the property and to include her name in the revenue records and this had created suspicion in the mind of the respondent. It was also alleged that appellant wanted to terminate services of Sylvia and take over money matters. Thus according to the respondent, appellant was interested only in his money and property and was using marriage as a means to achieve her goal.

Subsequently, appellant filed a petition in M.C. No. 844/2002 at Bengaluru on 17.6.2002 for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was transferred to Mangaluru and re-numbered as M.C. No. 1/2008.

On 19.8.2003, respondent filed M.C. No. 98/2003 at Mangaluru for a decree of divorce reiterating his version narrated in reply to the legal notice and prayed for decree of divorce and dissolution of marriage. Appellant resisted the petition by filing statement of objections re-stating allegations levelled by her in the legal notice. However, she offered to live with the respondent if he left bad company of Saroja & Sylvia.

4. With the above pleadings, parties went to trial. Respondent was examined as P.W.1. Appellant was examined as RW.1 and appellant's brother was examined as RW.2. 10 documents Ex. P1 to P10 were marked by the respondent and 3 documents were marked by the appellant as Exs. R1 to R3.

5. Family Court framed two issues in both petitions, which read as follows:---

"In M.C. No. 98/03:

1) Whether the petitioner-husband has made out sufficient grounds to seek divorce against the respondent on the ground of mental cruelty, non-consummation of marriage and actual desertion?

2) What order?

In M.C. No. 1.08:

1) Whether the petitioner-wife Mabel Treeza Pinto has made out sufficient ground for issuance of direction against her husband-Francis X. Pinto for the restitution of conjugal right and directing to come