Judgment : S. Talapatra, J. 1. The matrimonial suit was instituted by the appellant, being Civil Proceeding No.320 of 2016 seeking dissolution of marriage that subsists between him and the respondent by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said suit has been dismissed by the judgment dated 31.08.2019, which is under challenge in this appeal under Section-19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 2. While dismissing the judgment, it has been observed by the Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak as follows: “Instead of taking steps for restitution of conjugal rights, he (the appellant) straightway filed the present proceeding terming the alleged misconduct to be cruelty. The above approaches made by P.W.1 to resume conjugal life with the respondent clearly amounts to condonation of so-called cruelty in terms of Section-23(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By this act, P.W.1 wanted to reconcile intending to forgive the respondent for her wrongs and to restore her to previous position. In this regard, the case of Nirmala Devi vs. Ved Prakash : AIR 1993 Himachal Pradesh 1 may be referred. In this (sic) case, the petitioner-husband had sought a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Prior to filing of the case, the petitioner had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section-9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent-wife which was later on withdrawn. The trial court allowed the divorce proceeding holding the wife to have caused cruelty to the husband. The aggrieved wife approached the Hon’ble High Court challenging the said judgment. It is pertinent to note that the Judge, Family Court has extracted the following passage in order to support his analogy: “Condonation has not been defined anywhere. ‘Condonation’ is a word of technical import, which means and implies wiping of all rights of injured spouse to take matrimonial proceedings. In a sense condonation is reconciliation, namely, the intention to remit the wrong and restore the offending spouse to the original status which in every case deserves to be gathered from the attending circumstances. The forgiveness in order to constitute condonation need not be express. It may be implied by husband of the wife’s conduct and vice versa. Ordinarily, as a general rule, condonation of matrimonial offence deprives the condoning spouse of the right of seeking relief on the offending conduct. The forgiveness in order to constitute condonation need not be express. It may be implied by husband of the wife’s conduct and vice versa. Ordinarily, as a general rule, condonation of matrimonial offence deprives the condoning spouse of the right of seeking relief on the offending conduct. When a petition is filed claiming a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, it clearly stipulates that the person seeking relief has no grouse or cause of complaint against the other spouse and even if there was any cause or complaint, the same has either been condoned or forgiven. The intention being to resume normal cohabitation. As held in Dastane’s case ( AIR 1975 SC 1534 (supra), matrimonial offence is erased by condonation. In view of clear provisions contained in Clause (b) of sub-section(1) of Section-23 of the Act, it is always for the person who has approached the Court to satisfy that the act of cruelty has not been condoned.” 3. We would like to observe that the above observation as regards the condonation is absolutely out of context. As on scrutiny of the petition filed by the appellant under Section-13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, we do not find any averment relating to the institution of a matrimonial suit under Section-9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. Even in the written statement filed by the respondent, no such reference has been made. But we would hasten to observe that the decision in Nirmala Devi (supra) is not a correct proposition of law. Section-23 (1) (b) clearly provides that, if the act complained of was condoned, that cannot form the legal basis for dissolving the marriage. Such condonation shall be by conduct. After the alleged conduct, the spouses should have restored their conjugal relationship even may be for a short while. Any attempt to reconcile cannot be treated as a conduct of condonation. 4. The appellant, represented by Mr. G. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel, has challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence led by him was not duly appreciated, in as much as the appellant, while deposing as P.W.1 has given a catalogue of conducts of the respondent (RW-1), which, according to the appellant, adequately constitutes cruelty within the ambit of Section-13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been also asserted by Mr. It has been also asserted by Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondent No.1 has, in her deposition, alleged that the appellant was having extra- marital relation, but the said allegation has not been proved and has been left at that level. Such conduct itself constitutes cruelty. 5. In order to buttress his submission, Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel has relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Jyoti Yadav vs. Neeraj Yadav (Judgment dated 21.03.2022 delivered in MAT.APP.(F.C.) 111/2019). It has been held in Jyoti Yadav , inter alia as follows: “11. We consider that the Family Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has rightly found that the appellant – by making unfounded allegations amounting to character assassination against the respondent and his father has inflicted mental cruelty upon the respondent-husband. In the appeal also, the appellant has failed to bring any credible material to suggest that the findings recorded by the trial court are incorrect. It has repeatedly been held that accusations of unchastity or extra marital relationship is a grave assault on character, status, reputation as well as health of the spouse against whom such allegations were made. It causes mental pain, agony, suffering and tantamount to cruelty. The allegations of extra marital affairs in relationship are serious allegations, which have to be made with all seriousness. The tendency of making false allegations has to be deprecated by the Courts. The mal-intent of the appellant is also evident from her admission of publicizing her allegations against her father-in-law. His reputation would have been tarnished by such irresponsible conduct of the appellant.” [Emphasis added] 6. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel has highlighted the basic facts, pleaded and sought to be proved for dissolution of marriage. 7. In the petition filed before the Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak, the appellant has pleaded that on 13.03.2003, their marriage was solemnized following the Hindu rites and customs. After solemnization of the marriage, the appellant and the respondent started their conjugal life. In the wedlock, two female children, namely Dibyasa & Prayasa were born. When the appellant’s father passed away and he wanted to observe obsequies, that was objected to by the respondent. As the appellant was discharging his responsibility towards the family left by his father, the respondent opposed the said decision and engaged herself in altercations on daily basis. In the wedlock, two female children, namely Dibyasa & Prayasa were born. When the appellant’s father passed away and he wanted to observe obsequies, that was objected to by the respondent. As the appellant was discharging his responsibility towards the family left by his father, the respondent opposed the said decision and engaged herself in altercations on daily basis. She had pressed hard for separation of the joint family, but for financial reasons, that was not practicable. The respondent did never discharge her duty as a member of the family. She was always disrespectful to the appellant and the senior members of his family. 8. In the year 2009, the respondent filed a false case against the appellant in the Bhadrak Rural Police Station by giving a cock and bull story. Finally, no case was registered at the intervention by the well- wishers of the family. The petitioner was compelled to take transfer to Baitarani Road where he had worked as Railway Gang Coolie. Again, in the year 2011, the respondent had implicated the appellant in a Police case under Section-498A of the IPC leveling false allegations. During his stay at Baitarani Road, the respondent stayed most of the times at her father’s place. At times, she used to visit the appellant with the children and stay for few days. As the respondent comes from a wealthy family, she used to whine all the tune that the petitioner’s family does not have the standard to have her as a bride. Whenever she visited the appellant, she used to abuse him by terming him as beggar. 9. On 20.10.2013, the respondent assaulted the appellant and left the matrimonial home. As sequel, she lodged a complaint in the Police Station against the appellant under Section- 498A read with Section-4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Police arrested the appellant and he remained inside the jail for some days. In the process, the appellant’s dignity was badly affected. The respondent had inflicted mental pains which constitute cruelty. The said case, being G.R. Case No.698/2014 is still pending in the court of the S.D.J.M., Bhadrak and the appellant is facing the trial. The allegations as brought in that case and in the subsequent case filed under Section-12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, being Misc. Case No.238/2014 are, according to the appellant, false. The said case, being G.R. Case No.698/2014 is still pending in the court of the S.D.J.M., Bhadrak and the appellant is facing the trial. The allegations as brought in that case and in the subsequent case filed under Section-12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, being Misc. Case No.238/2014 are, according to the appellant, false. An appeal being Criminal Appeal No.09/2014 is pending in the court of the Sessions Judge, Bhadrak challenging the order passed in Misc. Case No.238 of 2014. The respondent had last resided with the appellant on 21.10.2013 and on that day itself, she left for her father’s place. According to the appellant, the respondent had left the house of the appellant voluntarily. The appellant has further asserted that he lost his faith completely on the respondent. 10. The respondent filed a written statement in C.P. No.320/2016 corresponding to the Matrimonial Suit No.699/2014 contending that the allegations as leveled against her are false and fabricated. It is the appellant who treated her with cruelty. In respect of filing of the Police cases, in para-8 of the written statement, it has been stated that due to severe mental and physical torture, the respondent was compelled to lodge an F.I.R. against the appellant and his family members on 13.04.2014. Even the children were not taken proper care by the appellant. In the written statement, it has been stated that the respondent used to do all the domestic work in her in-law’s house, and also in the Government Quarters. The respondent also filed an additional written statement. In the said additional written statement, the respondent denied the allegations brought against her. She has made the counter-allegations against the respondent in the written statements. 11. In order to prove his pleadings, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he had been paying maintenance to the respondent in terms of the order passed in the proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. He has further stated that in the year 2013, a written settlement had been entered between the appellant and the respondent over their marital dispute. After that, they had started living separately and the appellant had been paying a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as maintenance. He has further stated that in the year 2013, a written settlement had been entered between the appellant and the respondent over their marital dispute. After that, they had started living separately and the appellant had been paying a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as maintenance. He had asserted that he had to shoulder the expenses of the joint family, out of the salary he used to get, which in the month of August, 2018, was Rs.46,039/-. 12. The respondent did not controvert the statement of the appellant that she had been living separately by virtue of a settlement since 2013. It reveals from the evidence that her mother was providing financial assistance to her. After her death in the year 2008, the respondent has been facing serious financial stringency. It may be noted that the settlement regarding the amount of maintenance was arrived at, in the year 2013. In para- 6 of the evidence by affidavit, respondent has slapped a serious allegation against the appellant. It has been stated as follows: “There I came to know that the petitioner has got extra marital relationship with other lady since long for which myself and my children are being tortured and neglected.” 13. She has also deposed in order to explain further that due to severe mental and physical torture, and on failure of several conciliations, she was forced to file a complaint against the appellant and his family members in 2014. The statement of the appellant that they (the appellant and the respondent) were living separately from 2013 has not been controverted anywhere by the respondent. 14. We refrain ourselves from making further comments in this regard, as the criminal prosecution is still continuing and in the seisin of the S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. 15. Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel has laid serious emphasis on the allegations made in para-6 of the evidence by affidavit (under Order-18, Rule-4 of the CPC ) by the respondent and contended that such unfounded statement in respect of the character of the appellant is enough to dissolve the marriage on the ground of cruelty. 16. We have scrutinized records. What we find further that in the cross-examination, the respondent (RW-1) has stated as follows: “5. The alleged paramour of P.W.1 belongs to my in-laws village and I know her since the time of my marriage. 16. We have scrutinized records. What we find further that in the cross-examination, the respondent (RW-1) has stated as follows: “5. The alleged paramour of P.W.1 belongs to my in-laws village and I know her since the time of my marriage. Besides the lady mentioned in para 6 of my affidavit, P.W.1 has also extra marital illicit relationship with another 3 women, whom I know since long. I have seen physical relationship of P.W.1 with two of the above ladies many a times. I had seen such immoral acts for the first time a year after marriage. It is not a fact that I was not tortured by P.W.1 and his family in any manner as alleged by me and that P.W.1 was never having any extra marital relationship and that I voluntarily left P.W.1 on 20.10.2013 and that I mentally tortured P.W.1 during my stay with him and that I have claimed the alimony in this case and filed various cases against the P.W.1 at the instigation of my father to gain unlawfully.” 17. The appellant was re-cross-examined by the respondent to prove that his net monthly pay is Rs.23,379/-. 18. It has been brought to our notice that on 16.05.2019, one Laxmidhar Sahoo filed one affidavit in Civil Proceeding No.320/2016 in the court of the Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak. The said person (not party in the proceeding) has made categorical allegation in para-3 of the said affidavit that he came to know that the appellant had extra marital relationship with other lady for long and for which the appellant had neglected the respondent and their children. In para-4 of the said affidavit, he has asserted as follows: “4. That, when I learnt all these things, I tried a lot to settle up the matter between them. In the year 2013, I along with one Tapan Kumar Sethi and Manas Pati had sat on a meeting with the petitioner and tried to settle up the matter and after several conciliation, no rapproachment could be possible due to adamant and stubborn attitude of petitioner. Ultimately for torture and harassment my niece had to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioner and his family members in the year 2014.” 19. It appears that the Judge, Family Court has not taken any cognizance of that affidavit. This was not treated as the examination-in- chief. Ultimately for torture and harassment my niece had to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioner and his family members in the year 2014.” 19. It appears that the Judge, Family Court has not taken any cognizance of that affidavit. This was not treated as the examination-in- chief. As there had been no scope for the appellant to cross-examine the said person, no cognizance of such statement was taken. 20. It appears further that the respondent had realized that she had serious legal obligation to prove the allegation of extra marital affair as made by her against the appellant. But she has failed to discharge the said obligation, according to Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel. 21. Mr. G. Madani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has quite strenuously argued that despite the respondent’s sincere efforts to re-construct the marriage, only for the stubborn attitude of the appellant, the marriage could not be reconstructed or restituted. 22. According to Mr. Madani, learned counsel, the allegations, as made by the appellant, are mostly unspecified. Those allegations have been strongly denied by the respondent. There is no evidence to believe the allegations on cruelty. Existence of the criminal proceeding would prima facie show that the appellant has done wrong to the respondent and now, the appellant cannot take advantage of his own wrongs. 23. In the above context, reference has been made to Section-23 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It has been provided by Section- 23(1) (a) that, if any ground for granting relief exists and when the petitioner (except in the cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-section-(a), sub-clause-(b) & sub-clause-(c) of Clause-2 of Section-5) is not in any way taking advantage of his/her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, the Court may grant any relief. But as the petitioner intends to take advantage of his own wrongs, no relief should be granted. 24. Mr. Madani, learned counsel has submitted that the Judge, Family Court was not satisfied that the appellant made out any ground for granting relief to him. Consequently, the suit has been rightly dismissed. Mr. Madani, learned counsel did not make any response so far the cruelty claimed to have been proved for raising the allegation of the extramarital relation without proof. Madani, learned counsel has submitted that the Judge, Family Court was not satisfied that the appellant made out any ground for granting relief to him. Consequently, the suit has been rightly dismissed. Mr. Madani, learned counsel did not make any response so far the cruelty claimed to have been proved for raising the allegation of the extramarital relation without proof. He had fairly submitted that what is borne in the record, may be looked into by this Court. Alternatively, Mr. Madani, learned counsel has referred to the salary statement which the respondent has received from the Central Public Information Officer, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, Annexure-X to the affidavit filed by the respondent in the appeal as per our order dated 26.10.2022. From the said information, it appears that in the month of July, 2022, the appellant’s gross salary was Rs.70,051/-. 25. Mr. G. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel has filed one salary statement, but not supported by any affidavit, but as the same is a computer generated PDF salary statement of the appellant for the month of December, 2022, we have taken it on record without any objection from Mr. Madani, learned counsel, representing the respondent. It appears from the said salary statement that in the month of December, 2022 the petitioner’s gross salary was Rs.66,336/-. 26. Having appreciated the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we would observe at the outset that the appellant and the respondent started living separately on the terms of the written settlement, as they had realized that they could not lead a peaceful matrimonial life. It has also appeared that the appellant was arrested by the Police on the complaint of the respondent. If there were materials and the Police, having been satisfied thereof, had arrested the appellant in the interest of the investigation, this cannot be taken as the ground for seeking divorce. The said prosecution is still pending for final disposal. This position has been admitted by Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel. But, what has surprised us is that the appellant and the respondent have been living separately since 2013 accepting that they cannot live together. Even thereafter, the respondent has been resisting the petitioner’s relief for dissolution of marriage. 27. The said prosecution is still pending for final disposal. This position has been admitted by Mr. Mukherji, learned Senior Counsel. But, what has surprised us is that the appellant and the respondent have been living separately since 2013 accepting that they cannot live together. Even thereafter, the respondent has been resisting the petitioner’s relief for dissolution of marriage. 27. That apart, all on a sudden, in the evidence under Order-18, Rule- 4 of the CPC , the respondent has alleged that the appellant was having extra marital relation with the other ladies since long (see para-6 of the evidence filed by affidavit, by the respondent). 28. The respondent has stated in the cross-examination that a year after the separation by way of settlement, she had filed the Domestic Violence Case, even though she was getting the maintenance as agreed under the said settlement. In the cross-examination, she had further stated that the appellant had extra marital relationship with other three women whom she knew for long. It has been claimed by the respondent that she had seen the act of physical relation by the appellant with two of the above ladies many a times. She had seen such immoral act for the first time a year after the marriage, but there is no pleading in the written statement in this regard, nor in the additional written statement filed by the appellant subsequently. Thus, the respondent introduced the fact in such a manner so that the appellant cannot rebut or cannot raise interrogatories, seeking the names of the ladies. It may be noted further that none of those ladies has been named in the examination-in-chief or in the cross-examination. 29. The law in this regard is quite consolidated. Unless the allegation of extra-marital relationship is proved substantially and such allegation is left without proof that may be treated as cruelty for granting divorce. 30. In K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa : (2013) 5 SCC 226 , the apex court has observed as follows: “31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 30. In K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa : (2013) 5 SCC 226 , the apex court has observed as follows: “31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the Court’s verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court’s decree.” 31. As sequel, we may refer to a decision of the apex court in Narendra vs. K. Meena: (2016) 9 SCC 455 . In Narendra (supra), it has been held as under: “ 15. With regard to the allegations about an extra-marital affair with maid named Kamla, the re-appreciation of the evidence by the High Court does not appear to be correct. There is sufficient evidence to the effect that there was no maid named Kamla working at the residence of the Appellant. Some averment with regard to some relative has been relied upon by the High Court to come to a conclusion that there was a lady named Kamla but the High Court has ignored the fact that the respondent wife had leveled allegations with regard to an extra-marital affair of the appellant with the maid and not with someone else. Even if there was some relative named Kamla, who might have visited the appellant, there is nothing to substantiate the allegations leveled by the respondent with regard to an extra-marital affair. True, it is very difficult to establish such allegations but at the same time, it is equally true that to suffer an allegation pertaining to one’s character of having an extra-marital affair is quite torturous for any person-be it a husband or a wife. 16. We have carefully gone through the evidence but we could not find any reliable evidence to show that the appellant had an extra-marital affair with someone. 16. We have carefully gone through the evidence but we could not find any reliable evidence to show that the appellant had an extra-marital affair with someone. Except for the baseless and reckless allegations, there is not even the slightest evidence that would suggest that there was something like an affair of the appellant with the maid named by the respondent. We consider leveling of absolutely false allegations and that too, with regard to an extra-marital life to be quite serious and that can surely be a cause for mental cruelty.” [Emphasis added] 32. In an earlier decision, in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate : 2003(6) SCC 334 , it has been held by the apex court as follows: “ 7. The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that leveling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.” [Emphasis added] 33. In the case in hand, we may notice that since the year 2013, the spouses are living separately, that too after entering into a written settlement. The appellant has stated that as they [the appellant and the respondent] had failed to live a peaceful conjugal life, they preferred to live separately. The appellant had been paying the maintenance at the rate as agreed in the said written settlement. 34. We have taken note of the conduct of the respondent that she has made the grave allegation of extra-marital relation, not in the written statement nor in the additional written statement. Such allegations have been abruptly made in her examination-in-chief and those allegations occupied further magnitude in the cross-examination. We have no hesitation to hold that those allegations come within the meaning of cruelty as those are bound to hurt the appellant enormously. 35. That apart, what has been revealed from the record is that the marriage is dead and there is no sign that it can be retrieved. Even after living separately, some conduct of the respondent, are not above board. Those are in the realm of mental cruelty and as such, it is improbable to believe that the appellant can live peacefully with the respondent, nor he is expected to live with her. 36. So far as the finding relating to condonation of the conduct of the respondent is concerned, it is totally without any foundation. The cumulative impact of the above observations is that the unsubstantiated allegations of extra-marital relations, without even naming any person is highly grave and in the context of irretrievable breakdown, as we have noted, it is not expected that the appellant and the respondent will be able to live a peaceful conjugal life. 37. The cumulative impact of the above observations is that the unsubstantiated allegations of extra-marital relations, without even naming any person is highly grave and in the context of irretrievable breakdown, as we have noted, it is not expected that the appellant and the respondent will be able to live a peaceful conjugal life. 37. Under these circumstances, we allow the appeal as well as the matrimonial suit being Civil Proceeding No.320/2016 by dissolving the marriage that was solemnized on 13.03.2003 between the appellant and the respondent. 38. Simultaneously, we direct the appellant to pay a sum to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) within a period of three months from the date of issue of the decree. For the purpose of determining the permanent alimony, we have taken inputs from the certificate, as produced by the appellant. It has transpired from the said certificate that the income of the appellant is around Rs.70,000/- per month without deduction. 39. It is made absolutely clear that, if the alimony is paid, the appellant will not be required to pay any further maintenance to the respondent. The appellant shall file a copy of this judgment/order in the appropriate court which had passed the order directing payment of the monthly maintenance. 40. If the amount of alimony is not paid within the time as stipulated above, the decree, as would be drawn up, shall be treated as the money decree for the purpose of realization of the said amount through the process of the court. 41. In the event of failure in making payment of the entire amount of alimony by the stipulated date, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization. We hope that such situation will not arise. 42. The Registry is directed to prepare the decree in accordance with law. 43. If the physical LCRs are still lying in the Registry, those shall be returned forthwith. Savitri Ratho, J. I agree