False and unfounded allegations of adultery or illicit relationships by one spouse against the other constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and can be grounds for divorce.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Hooghly on 22. 9. 88 in Matrimonial Suit No. 161 of 1985 whereby he dismissed the suit.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-husband, who is the appellant here, brought the above suit against his wife, who is the respondent here, for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The wife contested the suit by filing a written statement.

( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu rites on 13. 3. 79 and a son, who is now about 12 years old, was born out of this wedlock. It is also not disputed that since 15. 10. 83 the parties have been living separately and that the son, born out of this wedlock, has been living with his mother. Both sides adduced evidence-oral and documentary in support of their respective cases before the learned District Judge who on consideration of the same has held that the plaintiff failed to prove cruelty or desertion as alleged by him. With these findings, he dismissed the suit.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved the petitioner-husband has preferred the instant appeal challenging the correctness and propriety of the findings as arrived at by the learned District Judge. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned District Judge should have passed a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The respondent, however, has resisted this appeal.

( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned District Judge with regard to desertion. However, we are not inclined to support his finding as to cruelty. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the written statement, the respondent-wife alleged that be petitioner used to coach a girt at Konnagore and fell in love with her. It was also alleged that the petitioner had illicit connection with the said girl. She did not stop these. Even in her deposition she has stated that the petitioner used to mix with another girl and that when she protested, there was a quarrel with him over this. So in her deposition she also persisted that her husband had illicit connection with another girl. But, barring evidence of her own, she could not adduce any evidence to prove the abovementioned allegation. This allegation, needless to say, has been denied by the petitioner-husband. In this case the respondent wife has examined three witnesses including herself. She has, as indicated above, spoken of such allegation. But her witnesses have not said anything in this regard. Her own brother Chandidas Banerjee (witness No. 3) has not said anything in this regard. Evidence of witness No. 2 Nepal Chandra Mukherjee in this regard is extremely vague. According to him the respondent-wife told him that her husband had some illicit connection with some girl. So he has got no direct knowledge whether the petitioner-husband had any illicit connection with any girls. Before institution of the instant suit, the respondent-wife made an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance against her husband. In this application she did not allege that her husband had love affairs or illicit connection with any girl. Before institution of the instant suit she also appears to have made a complaint to the General Manager of the Government of India press where the petitioner-husband used to serve. In this complaint against her husband, she did not make any allegation that her husband had any love affairs or illicit connection with any girl. So in the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the evidence on record we hold that such allegation of the respondent-wife is false and without any foundation. It is now well settled that such false allegation against the character of any spouse made by the other spouse constitutes mental cruelty