Persistent drunkenness, especially after warnings that it is harming the other spouse's health, may constitute cruelty, and condonation of cruelty cannot be lightly presumed from continued cohabitation after acts of cruelty, especially when the cohabitation is an attempt to reform the offending spouse.

( 1 ) THIS is a husband s appeal from the decree of divorce dated September 18, 1978.

( 2 ) THE parties were married on May 1, 1969. Both come from well- to-do families. There are two children of the marriage. A son was born on July 9, 1970 and a daughter on October 30, 1971. The husband is 34 years of age and the wife 29.

( 3 ) ON July 15, 1977 the wife petitioned for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act ). The real gravement of the wife s complaint was that the husband is a drunkard and by reason of and in consequence of drinking habits cruel to her.

( 4 ) THE wife made three complaints against the husband- (1) drunkenness, (2) beating and (3) suspicious nature. In her evidence she deposed that the husband drank like a fish. The particular concomitant of husband s drunkenness was his habit of beating the wife whenever she remonstrated with him that he should give up drinking. The cause of unhappiness was drunkenness. The wife in her statement said :

"i used to tell my husband that he should not drink. Upon this he used to abuse me in filthy language. When J persisted in asking him not to drink, he started beating me. It so happened for about 30/40 times. "drunkenness was persistent. So was beating. The wife said "the respondent used to beat me every third or fourth day". The husband was alcoholic. "he could never do without liquor", the wife said.

( 5 ) IN May 1975 the husband was treated for psychotic state (schizophrenia) and associated alcoholism by Dr. B. Gupta, a psychiatrist at Nandi Nursing Home. From May 31 to July 22, 1975 he remained in the nursing home. Dr. B. Gupta was examined on commission. He proved the history of the case and the record he had maintained. He affirmed that the husband was suffering from schizophrenia and associated alcoholism. Schizphrenia the doctor said, is a variety of insanity. The patient loses touch with reality exhibits queer and odd behaviour, and is unable to answer questions coherently and is often inclined to be aggressive and violent. The doctor found these complex psychologic factors present in the husband. He found that he was incapable of "sustained dialogue", that he had lost the sense of reality and was often non-co-operative, aggressive and violent. For a time the husband was better as a result of treatment. But very soon he relapsed into his former state of excessive drinking. This fondness of the bottle proved to be the ruination of marriage.

( 6 ) FROM April to beginning of August 1977 and again from November 1977 to March, 1978 the husband remained under the treatment of Dr. Denial in Noormanzil Psychiatrist Centre, Lucknow. The record of this treatment was not produced by the husband though he did not deny that he was treated there for some "mental ailment . The husband had delusions. He admitted that many times he thought of an imaginary girl Kiran because of his mental illness . That he remained under the treatment of Dr. Gupta was also not disputed.

( 7 ) THE medical history and evidence shows that the husband suffered from a psychotic disorder. His thinking was distorted. He was unable to cope with life situation. He showed a reduced tolerance for the stress of interpersonal relations. He retreated from social intercourse into his own fantasy life and commonly into delusions.

( 8 ) APART from beating which she said was the usual accompaniment of excessive drinking, the wife complained of the suspicious nature of the husband. He accused her of immoral behaviour. He suspected her fidelity. He did not allow her to meet the male members of the family.

( 9 ) SOON after the marriage the wife found to her surprise that the husband was a drunkard. On the very first night of the marriage he came to her dead drunk. The husband did not amend his way inspite of wife s persuasions. In 1974 the wife found that she could not longer tolerate this life. She apprehended danger to her life and the life of her c