Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The matter is listed for further orders, however, the respondent having failed to appear before this Court and the record of the trial Court being available, we proceeded to hear the matter finally.

2. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant-wife assailing the legality and validity of the impugned decree, whereby the Family Court, in a proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth 'the Act') for a decree of divorce, has allowed a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act.

3. It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court should have allowed a decree for divorce rather than a decree for judicial separation because the respondent was ex-parte before the trial Court. The appellant-wife has proved all the plaint allegations by examining herself and her witness- Bhairo Singh. The uncontested evidence should have weighed with the trial Court in granting a decree for divorce.

4. We have meticulously perused the entire record of the trial Court to find out as to why the trial Court has allowed the decree for judicial sep