I start with the fundamental posttion that husband and wife are under a duty to each other to cohabit. Unless there has been a separation, judicial or by a valid agreement, the parties are not titled to refuse to cohabit in the absence of any matrimonial of Quasi-matrimonial offence, or even where such an offence has been committed and afterwards condoned, And the law has now given a discretion to the Court to refuse a. decree of restitution: but "that discretion. is not to be generally or lightly used, but it is to be ex-excised judicially after a consideration of all the facts:" per Evans, in Fletcher v.. Fletcher (31,.'L. R. 306). Again: "The Court is not to exercise a general diseretion in granting or refusing a decree of restitution: to go so far would involve a large alteration of the old law and would confer discretionary power on the Court of far-reaching effect and most diffe cult to exercise:" Per Barnes, J., in Oldroyd ¥. Oldroyd (1896, 'p. 183): and that learned judge proceeded to lay down the test, as afterwards adopted by Shearman, J., in Greene v. Greene (1916, p. 188)? "Has it become practically impo sible for the parties to live properly together?"
The position there is that a petic tioner is entitled to a decree unless the respondent can satisfy the Court,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.