What the Family Court failed to appreciate is that, firstly, it is for the petitioner who approaches the Family Court, to decide whether he/she wishes to obtain the relief of divorce, or of judicial separation. It is not for the court to decide to substitute the relief sought by the petitioner from divorce to judicial separation, or vice versa. If the petitioner is able to establish the ground to seek one or the other of these reliefs, the Family Court cannot decide for the petitioner, that it is better for him/her, or the other/respondent spouse, to accept the relief that he/she has not sought in his/her petition. The two reliefs of divorce or judicial separation are not in that sense, larger or lesser reliefs, respectively. To test the approach of the Family Court, one may ask : if the Family Court was of the view that the respondent wife may come out of the influence of her family, could the Family Court have granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, even though the same was never prayed for by the appellant? In our view, the Family Court could not have done it, for the simple reason, that the petitioner before it had not sought that relief. The powers of the Family Court to change the nature of the relief sought is absent. The Family Court cannot be heard to tell the petitioner before it, what is “good” for him/her. It may render its advice to the parties when the matter is pending before it, but when it comes to adjudication, the Family Court is
