Restitution of conjugal rights decree upheld where concurrent findings showed no reliable proof of ill-treatment and no basis for reappraisal.

Concurrent factual findings that there was no reliable evidence of ill-treatment, supported by the parties' correspondence and the wife's stated unwillingness to return to the matrimonial home, left no basis for appellate interference with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The question of burden of proof was treated as immaterial at that stage because both sides had led evidence and the findings turned on appraisal of the record. In the absence of the relevant documents and given the concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court declined to reappraise the evidence and refused interference with the decree.

---

---

Issues: Whether the decree directing restitution of conjugal rights called for interference on the ground that the wife had been ill-treated and that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on her.

Analysis: The finding that there was no reliable evidence of ill-treatment was recorded by the courts below on appreciation of the evidence, including correspondence between the parties. The wife had also stated that she was not willing to return to the matrimonial home under any circumstance. The question of burden of proof was held to be of no importance at that stage, since both sides had led evidence and the findings rested on appraisal of that material. In the absence of the relevant documents and in view of the concurrent findings of fact, no basis for appellate reappraisal was made out.

Conclusion: Interference with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was declined, and the appeal was dismissed.

---