PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Sandhya is aggrieved by the decision dated January 31, 2014 dismissing HMA No.489/2012 filed by her seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Manish is aggrieved by a decision of even date dismissing HMA No.141/2012 filed by him seeking decree for divorce on grounds of cruelty. The two decisions dated January 31, 2014 have been authored by the same learned Judge presiding over the Family Court at Dwarka and we find that the evidence led by the parties is the same in the two petitions; one filed by the wife and the other filed by the husband.

2. The first shot was fired by Manish; apparent from the fact that the petition filed by him bears serial No.141/2012 and the one filed by Sandhya is 489/2012.

3. Case pleaded by Manish was that the marriage solemnized on March 08, 2011 was without any demand of dowry from him or his family, but customary gifts were given by the parents of Sandhya. The couple lived with his parents at P-283, Mohan Garden, Buddh Bazar Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Both were working. The first act of cruelty alleged is that after two days of marriage Sandhya went to her parental house and returned after one month notwithstanding he makin