The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship constitute mental cruelty, justifying a decree of divorce.

A.S. Oka, J.

These two Appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment as the challenge in these Appeals is to the same judgment and decree.

2. Considering the nature of the dispute, we direct that the names of the parties shall be masked in this judgment. We are referring to the parties for the sake of convenience as the husband and the wife. We are also directing that while reproducing the portions of the pleadings and/or evidence in this judgment, the names appearing therein shall be masked.

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 19th May, 1994. The husband initially filed a Petition claiming a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under clause i (a) of Sub-Section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the said Act'). During the pendency of the Petition, by way of amendment, the ground of desertion was added by invoking clause i(b) of Sub-Section of 13 of the said Act. Apart from seeking a decree of divorce, a decree of permanent injunction was claimed by the husband enjoining the wife to remove herself from Flat No. A 403, Padmavati, 3rd Cross Lane, Swami Samarth Nagar, Andheri, Mumbai 400 004 (described in the Petition as 'the suit premises'). The third and the last prayer is for substantive relief of injunction restraining the wife from harassing the husband in any manner whatsoever. The written statement and the additional written statement were filed by the wife. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge of the Family Court framed the issues and additional issues, which read thus:

Sr. No.	Issues	Findings
1	Does the petitioner prove that the respondent has, after solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty?	In the affirmative
2	Does the petitioner prove that the respondent deserted him two years preceding the amendment of the petition on 7.6.2006?	In the affirmative
3	Is the petitioner entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty u/s 13(1)(ia) and 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act?	In the affirmative
3a	Is the petitioner entitled to a permanent injunction as prayed by him in prayer clauses (b) & (c) of the petitioner.	As per final order
4	Is the respondent entitled to permanent alimony? If yes, what amount?	In the affirmative @ Rs. 3,000/p. m.
5	What order?	As per final order
Additional Issues		Findings
1. Is the petition valued appropriately?		In the affirmative
2. If not, what would be the proper valuation of the petition? Accordingly what would be additional Court fees to be affixed by the petitioner?		Does not survive.

4. In the light of the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Family Court on the issues, the Petition filed by the husband was partly allowed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2009. The marriage between the parties was ordered to be dissolved both on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife was restrained by an order of permanent injunction from harassing the husband in any manner whatsoever. In addition, the learned Judge of the Family Court passed a decree directing the husband to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- p. m. from the date of the decree.

5. Family Court Appeal No.149 of 2009 is preferred by the husband. He is aggrieved by that part of the impugned decree by which the learned Judge of the Family Court declined to grant mandatory injunction in terms of prayer clause (b) in relation to the suit premises. The Husband is also aggrieved by a decree directing him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/p. m to the wife from the date of the decree.

6. The Family Court Appeal No.95 of 2009 is preferred by the wife for challenging the decree passed by the Family Court of divorce and injunction. We may note he