The main legal point established in the judgment is that continuous mental and physical cruelty by one spouse towards the other can justify the grant of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

V.M. Kanade, J.

The learned counsel for the Appellant has invited our attention to a letter dated 9/10/2015 written by an advocate on record in the Supreme Court, informing him that the Appellant is taking urgent steps for filing an SLP against an order passed by this Court dated 2/9/2016. In the said letter, it is therefore, requested that an adjournment may be taken for hearing of the appeal. It is submitted that Appellant may seek adjournment on this ground.

2. In our view, so far as order dated 2/9/2016 is concerned, we had already granted leave to the wife to file an application seeking enhancement of maintenance. We had made it clear to both the parties that we do not propose to hear an application for enhancement of maintenance, and that we would like to hear the main appeal first.

3. This is a peculiar case where the husband is not ready to give divorce, though consent terms were filed and practically Respondent/wife had almost agreed to all the terms and conditions, which are imposed by the husband, because she had no other option but to do so. The wife, therefore, did not claim custody of the son or even access, since he is almost 16 years of age and very soon he will attain 18 years of age, and he would be in a position to decide whether he would like to meet his mother or not. Secondly, since wife was seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, she agreed to withdraw all the allegations, which were made in the petition. The husband, however, insisted that record should be clear. However, the husband insisted that wife should make a statement that the allegations which were made by her in the petition for divorce were false. She did not accept this condition. Lastly, she had also agreed that she will not claim past or future maintenance and that she will also not claim share in the property, and the consent terms were exchanged. We had suggested that both parties should withdraw allegations against each other because if a statement is made by wife that the allegations, which were made by her in the petition, were false that would create a problem for her in future because the husband may again prosecute her for making false allegations. We explained both the parties that standard formula in such cases is that both parties should withdraw the allegations made against each other. Thereafter again a new contention was raised by the husband, and he insisted that wife should make a statement that she does not have any claim in the husband's property, and she would not create any right, title and interest in the property of her husband or his family members. It needs to be pointed out that the father of the wife is the maternal uncle of the husband, which relationship is permitted under the Hindu Law, and there is a custom of giving maternal uncle's daughter in marriage to the sister's son in India. In this case, however, the Appellant and the Respondent had love affair when the wife was just 18 years of age and the husband, at that time, was 35 years of age. It is a matter of record that wife's father is comparatively in much more better financial position than the Respondent, as has been transpired during the course of submissions, made by the parties. The husband's mother has filed a suit against her brother claiming share in the property of her father. In the said suit, allegations are made that signatures of his mother are forged by the Respondent's father. We are informed that the husband proposes to file a similar suit.

4. It appears that, therefore, husband is not keen to file the consent terms. The parties, of course, cannot be forced to coaxed or threatened to enter into the consent terms and they have to do so only at their own volition. It is duty of this Court to pursue the parties to sit together and find out an amicable solution. If the solution cannot be arrived at, the Court has no other option but to hear the matter on merits. Since we have made it clear that the application for maintenance will be h