JUDGMENT - MANOHAR SHARAD, J.:- This appeal arises out of the wife's petition under the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty, physical as well as mental.

The husband does not seem to be interested in contesting this Appeal. He has made it a point to remain absent consistently in spite of repeated notices from this Court.

2. The petition for divorce was filed by the appellant/wife (hereinafter, the petitioner) for divorce on the ground of cruelty allegedly practised by here husband the respondent) against her. In her petition, she has given various instances of physical cruelty as well as mental cruelty. In defence to the petition, the respondent filed his Written Statement and in Para 2 of the Written Statement he made a thoroughly un-warranted allegation of adultery on the part of the petitioner with one Shankar Balaji Dubekar. This is what he has stated in said Para 2:-

“Without prejudice to what is stated above the respondent states that the petitioner herself is guilty of adultery with Shanker Balaji Dubekar (4) as the petitioner was absconding with the said Shankar Balaji Dubekar in the 1st week of August 1980 when on 5th August, 1980 the petitioner was arrested and Rs. 15,000/- were recovered from the petitioner and the said Shankar Balaji Dubekar when they were staying together for allegedly accepting money to transfer a liquor licence, to Pune in favour of one Pandurang Salunke. The Respondent states that the said affair was published in the daily newspaper Evening News on 8th August, 1980, at Bombay. The respondent states that the said matter is pending in the Explanade Court, the case No. being case 337/80. The aforesaid contentions are without prejudice to each other and foregoing averments.”

I have mentioned above that the allegations contained in the above Para of the Written Statement are thoroughly unwarranted. I will presently mention the reason why I say that they are unwarranted and I would also point out the legal effect of the same.

3. The respondent also denied the various allegations of cruelty made by the petitioner against him and on these pleadings issues were framed by the learned Judge and the parties went to trial. The petitioner examined only herself. The respondent examined himself and also examined two witnesses: Otavnekar and Chonkar.

On the basis of the evidence, arguments were advanced before the learned Judge and the learned Judge was satisfied that so far as the allegations as regards the various acts of cruelty till the date of petition were concerned, they were not proved by the petitioner. However, an additional argument was advanced before him, viz. the allegations contained in Para 2 of the Written Statement filed by the respondent, set out above, themselves amounted to grave mental cruelty on the part of the respondent against the petitioner/wife. Reliance in that behalf was placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge (Vaidya J.) of this Court reported in A.I.R. 1976 Bombay 212 (Smt. Sumanbai v. Anandrao Onkar Panpatil)1. The learned Judge, however, relied upon another judgment of another learned Single Judge (R.A. Jahagirdar J.) reported in 1980 Maharashtra Law Journal 391 (Madanlal Sharma v. Smt. Santosh Sharma)2, as also upon the judgment of the Delhi High court reported in A.I.R. 1982 Delhi 107 (Smt. Pushpa Rani v. Krishna Lal)3, and held that even though grave allegations of adultery were made by the respondent/husband against the petitioner/wife in the Written Statement which could be regarded as one of the forms of mental cruelty, still there was nothing in the evidence of the petitioner to show that any agony of mental character was suffered by her on account of those allegations. The learned Judge seems to have taken the view that those allegations were taken by the petitioner/wife in her strides, or that she had not taken much serious note of them and that, hence, no serious note of the same need be taken by the Court as well. Taking this view of the ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document