Gokhale H.L., J.: - These two appeals filed by a wife seek to challenge the common judgment and order dated 12th February, 2004 passed by Family Court No. III at Pune in Petition No. A-827 of 2000 and Petition No. C-55 of 2002. Petition No. A-827 of 2000 was filed by the respondent husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. Petition No. C-55 of 2002 was filed by the appellant wife seeking permanent maintenance under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The impugned common judgment allowed the petition filed by the respondent husband seeking divorce and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant wife for maintenance. It is, therefore, that these two appeals filed by the appellant wife arising out of the two proceedings.

2. The short facts leading to these appeals are as follows :

The appellant and the respondent were married as per the Hindu Vedic Rites on 19th December, 1997. Soon thereafter, differences developed between the two and they are not living together from 25th August, 1999, though it is the case of the appellant that she was driven out of the matrimonial home. There is no child from this marriage. The appellant wife has her own employment and it has come in evidence that her monthly salary was Rs. 6,000/-, out of which take - home amount was Rs. 5,300/-. The respondent husband was working as a teacher with a salary of Rs. 3,000/- as per the salary slip, the take - home amount being Rs. 2,940/-. It is the claim of the appellant wife that the respondent was also running the business of advertising and had additional income there from.

3. The respondent husband raised various grounds to substantiate his case for cruelty. As numerated by the learned Family Court Judge, there were in all six instances of cruelty, they being as follows:-

(i) Refusal to do domestic work.

(ii) Insulting and abusing.

(iii) Insisting on having a separate residence.

(iv) To visit the matrimonial home and not to return on a number of days every week.

(v) Threatening and terrorising the husband and his parents.

(vi) Not disclosing that she had some gaenacological problem prior to marriage and concealing her miscarriage which took place sometime in December 1998.

The appellant wife denied these allegations, but over and above the denials, she made certain allegations of her own in para 5(K) and (L) of the written statement. In para 5(K), she mainly made three allegations; (i) the respondent behaved with her perversely and harassed her sexually; (ii) he would indulge in obscene talks with his girl friends on phone and in person and would behave immodestly with the girl friends to torture the appellant, (iii) he had illicit relationship with one Leena, wife of Vivek, and in fact he wanted to marry her. In para 5(L), she made allegations against her father-in-law that his behaviour with her was improper and in that she alleged that (i) he would touch her unnecessarily and (ii) he would barge into the kitchen if she was changing her clothes.

4. The respondent examined himself and then led the evidence of a few supporting witnesses, including his mother. The appellant examined herself and a few supporting witnesses. The examination-in-chief was by way of filing affidavits on the basis of which the cross-examination was conducted. After recording this evidence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish the six specific instances of cruelty. He, however, took the view that the allegations made by the appellant in her written statement were baseless and amounted to cruelty. The learned Judge noted that with respect to the allegations about relationship between the respondent and Leena, except the bare words in the affidavit of appellant, there is no other evidence on record. He commented that it was her duty to examine Vivek. Similarly with respect to the allegations against the father of the respondent, the learned