SETSE V. SETSE

MR. COMMISSIONER MINNOW: In this matter the petitioner, who prays for restitution of conjugal rights, alleges that she and the respondent are man and wife, married under the Marriage Ordinance. It appears that because of some difference between them they have been living apart since 1955. In her petition, the petitioner states that she had made every endeavour to return to her husband, and to resume the enjoyment of her conjugal rights.

The Reply of the respondent is that “the petitioner is not sincere in her request, and it is only an attempt to stop the period of desertion required by Law for the institution of legal proceedings from running its full course that this action is being taken.”

On the 28th February, 1959 the respondent filed notice of amendment of his Reply dated the 7th February, 1958, and on the 3rd March, 1959, Counsel for petitioner not opposing, the Court granted leave to amend. The amendment was to delete paragraph 1 of the Reply (admitting the marriage), and to sub…