Per SALDANHA M.F., J.:—Aspects of some significance touching proceedings instituted for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have arisen in these appeals, in which we have heard learned Counsel extensively, which issues are summarised below:

a) Whether in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage while granting a relief under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the trial-Court would be justified in the grant of ancillary orders in relation to items of property, such as the ornaments, furniture, fixtures, etc., or whether on a strict construction of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a Court would be required to direct the parties to adopt separate proceedings only in respect of these reliefs?

b) Where the Act is silent and it appears both reasonable and desirable that the reliefs in respect of property not covered by section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act be granted, whether the inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to be used?

c) Whether in a case of grant of permanent maintenance/alimony at the stage of final disposal of the petition the order can date back to the point of time of the institution of parallel matrimonial proceedings earlier instituted in the face of an interim order refusing the grant of maintenance in that case?

d) Whether the Court would be justified in refusing a litigant, who is alleged to have frustrated the resumption of cohabitation, the relief of divorce on the ground that the party is taking advantage of its own wrong?

2. These are some of the main facets of the dispute that has fallen for adjudication before us. We shall, to the extent necessary, summarize the history of this proceeding, which is rather unusual and which, in fact, encompasses three different matrimonial proceedings. The appellant-wife had instituted M.J. Petition No. 383 of 1986 before the City Civil Court at Bombay on 4-4-1986 praying for a decree for judicial separation as also for a direction that she be awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,050/- per month for her three children. The appellant-wife was gainfully employed at that time and did not pray for any maintenance for herself. This petition was preceded by an earlier, petition, being M.J. Petition No. 662 of 1982, filed by the respondent-husband. He had sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The parties are Hindus and were married at Bombay on 11-5-1969 according to the vedic rites and ceremonies. The couple had three children, the first of them being a son by the name Rajesh, the second being a daughter by the name Unnati and the third a son by the name of Suprasad. We are not immediately concerned with the lengthy pleadings that are on record wherein the parties have traded a number of charges against each other. The reason for this is that the petition filed by the husband, wherein he alleged instances of cruelty which were denied by the appellant-wife, was contested and the City Civil Court dismissed the petition with costs. It is relevant to point out that by virtue of a direction from the High Court, M.J. Petition No. 583 of 1986, which had been filed by the wife wherein she had prayed for a decree of judicial separation, was heard along with the husband's M. J. Petition No. 662 of 1982 and the petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 21-4-1987. This aspect is of some relevance because Mr. Angal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-wife, has sought to advance a submission on the issue of maintenance, which will have some bearing on the fact that the two petitions came to be heard and disposed of through a common judgment. The City Civil Court at Bombay, while dismissing the husband's petition, decreed the wife's petition and she was granted a decree of judicial separation. The only relevant aspect of the matter that is of some consequence as far as the present proceeding is concerned is that, admittedly, after a short cohabitation lasting about three years, the wife le