A bare denial of paternity without pleading non-access amounts to cruelty and cannot defeat restitution of conjugal rights.

The parties married on 6 June 2011 and had a daughter.

The husband filed a divorce petition alleging cruelty and desertion; the wife sought restitution of conjugal rights.

The husband alleged, among other things, that he was not the child’s father, while the wife alleged harassment and that he had refused to take her and the child back.

The divorce petition was dismissed for default after the husband failed to pay interim maintenance. In the wife’s restitution petition, she testified and produced documents; the husband adduced no oral or documentary evidence. The Family Court granted restitution, prompting the husband’s appeal.

Whether the wife was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

The appeal concerned the wife’s claim for restitution of conjugal rights; although the judgment does not expressly cite a statutory provision for that relief, it considered whether the husband had shown a justifiable basis for living apart.

The Court treated a denial of a child’s paternity as requiring a pleaded basis—such as non-access or the wife’s relationship with another person—and supporting particulars or cogent material; a bare assertion was insufficient.

The Court also considered whether the husband’s allegations of cruelty were supported by pleadings and evidence. No precedent is cited in the judgment.

The husband’s claim that he could not be the father because the wife conceived while at her parental home did not establish non-access, and he had neither pleaded an alternative relationship nor produced cogent evidence supporting his denial.

The Court therefore rejected the paternity allegation as a bald assertion and found that the denial itself amounted to cruelty to the wife.

The husband’s other allegations—including complaints to the Social Welfare Department and an assault on his family—were also uncorroborated.

In the absence of supporting pleadings and evidence, the Court found no basis to disturb the Family Court’s assessment or its grant of restitution.

It dismissed the appeal, confirmed the Family Court’s judgment and decree dated 23 March 2021, and made no order as to costs.