JUDGMENT

R.M. SAHAI, J.- This is wifes appeal against grant of decree for divorce by the High Court on ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. When leave was granted this Court observed:

"Special leave is granted as prima facie it appears that there are some points of law arising in the matter which may deserve consideration. We must, however, express that it is with some regret that we are granting leave in this matter because it appears to us that the marriage between the parties is, for practical purposes, dead. The only child of the marriage is a daughter who is also married and settled. The enforced continuity of the marriage will only mean that the parties will spend more years in bitterness against each other. The husband is in a position to provide reasonable maintenance or permanent alimony. We can only hope by the time the appeal reaches hearing the parties will be in a more reasonable frame of mind and arrive at some resolution of their problems which will be mutually acceptable to them."

But when the special leave petition was taken up for hearing the parties adopted very tough and rigid attitude. And that too when they are grandparents by now. Prime of life is lost but the fire of dislike for each other was still burning hot. We do share feelings of wife expressed by the learned counsel that a conservative Hindu lady would not prefer to be known as divorcee in the society. At the same time we cannot be oblivious of the impossible situation in which the parties have landed themselves which indeed is unfortunate.

2. Both the appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) come from middle class families. Their fathers were vaid by profession. The husband while he was doing internship at the J.J. Hospital, Bombay, was married to the appellant and from their wedlock a daughter was born who admittedly is now married. Differences appear to have arisen sometime in late seventies nine years after marriage due to alleged intimacy of the husband with another lady doctor, which ultimately led to filing of the petition for divorce by the husband on ground of cruelty. When written statement was filed and allegations of adultery were made against the husband he set up a case of undesirable association of his wife with young boys. Unfortunately for the appellant even the matrimonial court which dismissed the petition found that her behaviour was not of a Hindu married woman. Whether the allegation of the husband that she was in the habit of associating with young boys and the findings recorded by the three courts are correct or not but what is certain is that once such allegations are made by the husband and wife as have been made in this case then it is obvious that the marriage of the two cannot in any circumstances be continued any further. The marriage appears to be practically dead as from cruelty alleged by the husband it has turned out to be at least intimacy of the husband with a lady doctor and unbecoming conduct of a Hindu wife.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Division Bench committed error in observing that matrimonial proceedings are quasi criminal in nature therefore it was for the wife to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the husband was leading an adulterous life appears to have some merit in view of a decision of this Court in Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane{(1975) 2 SCC 326}. But we do not propose to examine it as we are satisfied that the marriage is dead and the findings of fact cannot be set aside by this Court except that the appeal can be sent back to the Division Bench to decide it again which would mean another exercise in futility leading to tortuous litigation and continued agony of the parties. We may also mention that the findings of unbecoming behaviour of the appellant appear to be shaky. We, therefore, direct that such findings in the judgment of all the courts shall stand deleted. Yet we have decided not to interfer