ORDER

1. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. Their marriage took place in 1988. Within three years of their marriage, they had two children. However, soon after the birth of the last issue, it appears that the relationship between the husband and wife deteriorated so much so that the appellant claims to have filed a complaint with the local Mahila Samiti against his wife. According to the appellant, an incident took place on 15-7-1993 in which he claims that the respondent slapped him and pushed him as a result of which he fractured his arm. He filed a petition for divorce soon thereafter. The ground on which the divorce was sought was cruelty both physical and mental. As far as the physical aspect is concerned, the allegation in the plaint is that the respondent was responsible for the fracture of the appellants hand in the manner earlier stated. As far as the mental cruelty is concerned, it is alleged that the respondent used to level allegations of an illicit relationship between the appellant and other ladies. The respondent wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

2. The trial court held in favour of the appellant and was of the view that the appellant had been able to establish both physical and mental cruelty as pleaded by him. A decree for divorce was passed on the appellants petition and the respondents prayer for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. The High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court on appeal. The High Court was of the view that the allegations regarding abusive behaviour had not been established because no such allegations had been made by the respondent either in her written statement or in her oral evidence. The High Court also held that since the wife wished to live with her in-laws and that the husband had not made any effort to bring his wife to the house after she a left the house, this showed that the respondent wife had been turned out of the house by the appellant husband without any reasonable cause. The appellants suit was, accordingly, dismissed and the respondents suit for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed.

3. We find the reasoning of the High Court difficult to accept. It was not necessary for the husband to establish from the written statement that the wife was abusive. He had given categorical evidence to this effect when he was examined before the trial court both as regards the allegations of infidelity and also with regard to the physical assault committed by the respondent on the husband. Although a contrary case was suggested to the appellant there was no effective cross-examination of the appellant husband on this point. In addition to the oral evidence given, in support of the pleas by the husband, corroboration could be found in the pleadings filed by the respondent in connection with proceedings during the pendency of the matrimonial suit. In her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance as well as in her rejoinder, the respondent has clearly made allegations against the husband saying that he was engaged in anadulterous relationship. The trial court has noted this and also noted that in her examination-in-chief the respondent had denied that she had ever abused her husband of having immoral character or having an extramarital relationship. The trial court coming to the conclusion on the evidence on record that the appellant had established his case was justified. The High Courts reasoning and conclusion to the contrary is insupportable.

4. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained and the suit for divorce filed by the appellant must be decreed. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights must stand dismissed. However, this does not conclude the matter. There is still outstanding the question of maintenance payable by the appellant to the respondent. Initially, the maintenance granted to the