( 1 ) THE appeal before us raises one important point amongst others. The important point that arises before us is :"whether a petitioner in a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty , is entitled to claim such a decree under any circumstances, merely on the ground that the respondent has failed to prove the charges of cruelty levelled in the counter by way of defence, against the petitioner?"

( 2 ) THIS point, along with others on facts, arises in the present appeal in the following circumstances :-"the appellant is the original petitioner in O. P. No. 9 of 1996. It is not disputed that marriage between the petitioner and respondent took place under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) and was performed on 26-1-1989 at Visakhapatnam. The spouses are not residing together since April, 1990. It is petitioner s case that immediately after marriage both of them went for honeymoon. The petitioner is resident of secunderabad. The honeymoon planned by him was at Udaipur but the respondent rejected the trip to Udaipur and instead suggested Nepal. Though petitioner was hurt by this, he planned the visit to Nepal. It is alleged that in the trip the respondent was unco-operative on all occasions and picked up quarrels with the petitioner. The parties had to return to Secunderabad before the planned day of return. This was due to the unco-operative conduct of the respondent throughout. On return to Secunderabad, the respondent continued her quarrelsome nature. She picked up quarrels with all the members in the family. She misbehaved and disrespected the parents of the petitioner. She often asked that she should be reached to her parents. She showed apathy for matrimonial life and suggested that marriage be dissolved. One Sri Kishan Chandji, who is uncle of respondent, was informed about this in his visit at Secunderabad. The said uncle and petitioner took respondent to a Psychiatrist, who diagnosed respondent as a patient "adjustment Reaclia". Treatment was given to respondent. The respondent did not improve and continued her conduct of picking quarrels, and giving threats. She continued to suggest that marriage be dissolved. The petitioner thus suffered continuous mental torture which amounted to mental cruelty towards him. The respondent left for Visakhapatnam on 12-4-1990. A detailed letter was sent to the father of the respondent on 7-7-1990. A legal notice was sent on 25-7-1990. By this notice, the petitioner called upon the respondent to agree to a divorce by a mutual consent. The respondent instead of agreeing to such request approached mahila Dakshata Samithi headed by the First Lady of the State (wife of the then Governor Sri Krishan Kant ). The petitioner was time and again called at the Governor s house by the said Samithi. The petitioner states that as per the dictates of the First Lady he was forced to write that he shall return all the jewellery to the respondent and also pay rs. 700/- p. m. for pocket expenses of the respondent if the marriage was dissolved and shall further pay an amount of five lakhs of rupees and arrange for a Flat at Hyderabad as a part of permanent alimony. A threat was given by the First Lady that the petitioner would be prosecuted for an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code ( for short the i. P. C. ). Thus the petitioner has been subjected to cruelty by variety of means. The petitioner ultimately filed this petition on 4-12-1990 for seeking dissolution of marriage on ground of aforesaid mental cruelty .

( 3 ) RESPONDENT-WIFE denied all the allegations against her. It was stated by her that during the honeymoon trip calls from sister and father of the petitioner were received quite often in Nepal calling upon the petitioner to return immediately to Secunderabad for business purpose. She was completely co-operative in the trip. She was attending to all household work at her matrimonial house with care. S