R. BASANT, J.

1. Is there reasonable cause to justify the withdrawal of the wife from the matrimonial society of the husband? Is he entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights? These are the simple questions to be decided in this appeal. But this appeal reveals the burdensome nature of adjudication of matrimonial causes. For the adjudicators also it is demanding, draining disappointing and frustrating too. The court feels that the endeavour to distinguish truth from perceptions of the parties in matrimonial causes is indeed challenging and difficult and more importantly perhaps, unnecessary and purposeless too. The question still remains: Has not our society attained sufficient maturity to leave the matrimonial options safely in the hands of the individuals concerned? Should the system tax itself with the responsibility of attempting to make value judgments of right and wrong in matrimonial causes which are purely interpersonal? Should spouses be compelled to spend long years in the corridors of matrimonial courts to liberate themselves from the `holy' knot which is giving them nothing but trauma and frustration? Is it not time yet to have a healthy piece of modern matrimonial legislation that permits unwilling spouses to walk out with dignity as friends from a matrimony that he or she considers unworkable? Will not stipulations of mandatory counselling and mandatory period of waiting and of legal mechanism to protect the financial interests of the economically fragile partner and children born in such matrimony better serve the interests of the society and justice? These disturbing thoughts come to our mind again when we commence dictation at the end of a long exercise where we find ourselves unable to persuade the couple to unite harmoniously or to part with dignity as friends.

2. To the fundamental and undisputed facts first of all. The young couple, contestants in this appeal, are both qualified teachers. There is, of course, a dispute as to whether the wife is presently employed or not. Their marriage took place on 25/5/98. After marriage initially they had attempted to reside together in the parental home of the husband; but they had given it up and they had resided at two places - Ballussery and Ulliyeri, in houses taken on rent. The wife became pregnant. There was acrimony in the marriage on account of various reasons. The wife was not taken to her house for delivery during the seventh month. The spouses continued to reside in the rented house. The mother of the wife had gone to that house and had resided with the couple for about one month. Separate residence started from 30/9/99 when the wife was taken to her house for delivery. From 30/9/99 the spouses are residing separately. A female child was born on 19/10/99.

3. According to the husband, the wife has unreasonably and without sufficient cause withdrawn from his society. She is not willing to resume cohabitation after child birth. He is willing to take her and resume cohabitation. It is, in these circumstances, that the husband came to the Family Court with this petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Divorce Act.

4. The wife resisted the claim of the husband. According to her, she had sufficient and justifiable cause to insist on separate residence and not resume cohabitation with the husband. She contended that the husband was guilty of mental and physical cruelty. She is entitled for a decree for divorce on that ground. Subsequent to the filing of this petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the wife had filed an application for divorce. The same stands stayed now. The wife had, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court, initiated proceedings before the authorities to prosecute the husband complaining about matrimonial cruelty and the infliction of injury including a fracture. That criminal proceeding is also stayed by the order of this Court consequent to an attempt made by the court to ha