( 1 ) THESE two appeals are disposed of by this common judgement. In both the appeals the wife is the appellant. The husband filed O. P. No. 79 of 1991 for divorce on the ground of adultery, desertion and cruelty, while the wife filed O. P. No. 89 of 1991 for restitution of conjugal rights.

( 2 ) THE husband is a bank officer and the wife is a graduate coming from a wealthy family. The marriage between husband and wife was performed in the year 1981 and she joined him in 1981 and they lived together till July, 1981. Thereafter she left her marital home for her parents house. When the wife went to Vizianagaram in November, 1981, where the husband was posted, he did not allow her to enter the house on account of mental torture and agony caused to him. Therefore, the parents took her to Ongole and she lived there till June, 1985. There was a mediation pursuant to which the wife joined the husband in February, 1988 at Bhopal. During her stay with her husband from 1988 to 1991 she was all the time abusing him in filthy language and calling him impotent. Thereafter she left in the month of May to her parents house and in June she wrote to him stating that she was pregnant. Having come to know that the wife became pregnant he filed O. P. 79 of 199 1/10/1991 for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery.

( 3 ) THE wife denied all the allegations in her counter-affidavit. On the other hand, she alleged that husband and his relations namely parents and sisters ill-treated her and her husband used to come in drunken condition and she was treated cruelly by them.

( 4 ) THE averments in O. P. 89 of 1991 are more or less similar. The husband examined himself as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 and PW-4. The wife got herself examined as RW-1 and also RW-2 her brother. The husband filed Ex. A-1 to A-5 while the wife filed Ex. B-1 to B-4. On behalf of the Court Ex. X-1 to X-3 were marked. On the basis of evidence adduced, the learned Judge found that there is no adultery or desertion. On the other hand, he found that the allegation of mental cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called as the Act) is established and granted divorce. He dismissed the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved by the same the present appeals are filed.

( 5 ) THE main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Court below mainly relied on Ex. A-1 under which the wife wrote a letter to her brother-in-law namely brother of her husband complaining that her husband is incapable of becoming father and therefore the said letter caused mental cruelty to the husband. However, the appellant gave birth to a child thereafter and therefore the respondent is deemed to have condoned the cruelty caused to the respondent under Ex. A-1. The contents of Ex. A-1 cannot be treated as wild allegations as it is based on Ex. B-1 letter dated 14-4-1976. Ex. B-1 dated 14-4-1976 being a letter addressed by Tata Memorial Research Institute under which the husband was advised to undergo treatment. PW-1 also admitted that the contents of Ex. A-1 letter do not amount to attributing impotency to him. Even assuming that it amounts to causing mental cruelty, a single instance in a long married life cannot be taken to have caused mental cruelty by the appellant. The appellant has not published ex. A-1 letter, so the husband cannot take advantage of his own wrong. The Counsel submitted that the learned Judge proceeded on the assumption that the appellant has not informed about her pregnancy to her husband, which is wrong, as PW-2 brother of PW-1 informed about the pregnancy of the wife to the respondent.

( 6 ) THE counsel for the respondent reiterated the grounds on which the learned Judge granted divorce. The question, therefore, is whether ex. A-1 dated 12-1-1991 caused mental cruelty warranting grant of a divorce.

( 7 ) BEFORE considering whether Ex. A-1 caused mental cruelty warrant