Mental cruelty is a valid ground for granting a decree of divorce.

1. - This is an appeal filed by the husband Madan Gopal against the judgment and decree of divorce granted against him in favour of his wife Smt. Savita by the learned District Judge, Udaipur on 14-8-84.

2. The parties are Hindus and their marriage took place at Jodhpur on 3-2-63 according to the Hindu rites and customs. The parties lived at Jodhpur for sometime after the marriage. At the time of the marriage Shri Madan Gopal was a matriculate and Smt. Savita had passed her Higher Secondary Examination. After the marriage, Smt. Savita continued her studies and passed her M. B. B. S. in 1969-70. She was appointed as a Senior Demonstrator in 1971. In 1972, a daughter was born out of this wed-lock. Later in June, 1973, Smt. Savita was transferred to Udaipur and stayed there till November, 1976. Then she was again posted at Jodhpur and remained there upto July, 1977 when she was transferred to Bikaner. On 26-9-77, Smt. Savita went away to Libya and from there she went to England. From England she came to India for sometime and during that time she filed the present application for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty against her husband on 30-1-80 and on the very next day i. e. 1-2-80, she went away back to England.

3. Her case for the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty was that her husband, whose father had already expired did not look after the business properly and used to squander away money and, therefore his mother removed him from the shop, that her husband used to quarrel with his mother and his brothers, as a result of which, he and the petitioner were turned out of the house. She further alleged that her husband was used to drinking and gambling. He used to return to the house at late hours in a drunken state and used to abuse and beat the petitioner. She also alleged that she used to get scholarship during her-studies in M.B.B.S. and the non-petitioner forced and compelled her to give him money out of that scholarship. She goes on to allege that in order to extract money from her, the non-petitioner used to come to the hospital where she was posted and compelled her by using foul language and threatening to give him money in the presence of her colleagues. Her case further was that when she was transferred to Udaipur, the non-petitioner used to come to Udaipur also and extracted money from her in the same manner and there also he used to come to the house in a drunken state and behave improperly and insult the petitioner in the presence of her neighbours etc. Her case further was that even when the daughter was born to her, the non-petitioner did not care for her or her daughter. According to her, the non-petitioner never arranged for the house-hold requirements nor did he look after the child or bring any clothes, toys, etc., for the daughter. Not only this, he continued to extract money from the petitioner and even told her that as she was a woman, she could earn by other means apart from her profession as a doctor. According to the petitioner, this behaviour of the non-petitioner made her life a hell and amounted to mental and physical cruelty. She had to suffer mental agony, insult and loss of prestige and was also scared about her own safety. The case of the petitioner further was that such cruel and improper behaviour of the non-petitioner caused her mental agony and she did not find it safe live in the company of the non-petitioner. She further alleged that recently, the non-petitioner had also applied for the custody of the daughter who was till now being looked after by the petitioner and in these circumstances, she was compelled to file this application for grant of divorce.

4. The non-petitioner admitted the fact of marriage and the birth of the daughter and also the fact of the different postings of the petitioner. He, however. denied that he acted in any improper or cruel manner causing any apprehension to the life or health of the petitioner. According to him, he never used to drink and n