JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, C.J. - The wife is aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.05.2018 granting decree of divorce to her husband on ground of cruelty. The issue: Whether the appellant was guilty of adultery with respondent No.2 has been decided in favour of the appellant. There are no cross objections filed by the respondent to the impugned judgment. Thus, in appeal, our focus would be on the pleadings and the evidence on basis whereof the decision has been rendered.

2. Respondent's case was that marriage between the couple as per Hindu Custom was solemnized on 16.02.2009. After marriage the respondent found that the appellant was in constant touch with Bheru Gurjar over the Mobile No.9784089352. The two used to talk to each other for hours together. After talking to Bheru Gurjar appellant's behaviour used to become abnormal. At the drop of the hat she would pick up quarrel and abuse. Bheru Gurjar even rang up respondent and told him that he had physical relationship with the appellant. When respondent confronted the appellant she said that she was a modern girl. She taunted him of being more educationally qualified than him and said that if he troubles her by asking these questions she would implicate him in a false case for dowry harassment. On 21.01.2010 the appellant left the matrimonial house and took with her the jewellery and her clothes. When the respondent contacted her parental house he learnt that the appellant had not reached there and therefore on 22.01.2010 he lodged a missing persons complaint. He learnt thereafter that the appellant had reached her parental house. He made attempts that the appellant should return to the matrimonial house. But she didn't. He found a writing by the appellant in the house from which it was apparent that she was having relations with Bheru Gurjar.

3. In the written statement filed the appellant denied the assertions made against her concerning either her behaviour or she being in touch with Bheru Gurja over the telephone. With respect to the respondent's assertion in the petition seeking divorce that after the appellant left the matrimonial house on 21.01.2010 and after he had lodged the missing persons report on 22.01.2010 he found a writing of the appellant, she pleaded that the writing was obtained by the respondent under threat of leaving her. As per the appellant, the respondent said that unless she writes what he desires, he would leave her. As per the written statement she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house because of harassment.

4. Appearing as his witness the respondent stated that he was married with the appellant as per Hindu Custom on 16.02.2009. She resided with him till 21.01.2010 and left the matrimonial house without a cause. She used to talk with Bheru Gurjar for hours together and after talking to him she would behave abnormally. That the appellant used to threaten him that she would involve him in a false dowry case and would taunt him of being more qualified than him. On 21.01.2010 the appellant left the matrimonial house and when he could not trace her he lodged a missing persons complaint (Ex.1) at Bagru Police Station on 22.01.2010. Due to on going elections the police requested him to wait for day or two. Thereafter appellant's brother informed him over the telephone that appellant had come to the parents house. She had left behind writings (Ex.5 and Ex.6). That he had recorded the conversation between him and his wife in three CDs' Ex.2, Ex.3 and Ex.4. (The transcripts thereof were tendered). That after the appellant left the matrimonial house attempts made to bring her back failed. She refused to come back.

5. Relevant would it be to highlight that during cross examination the appellant put no suggestion to the respondent that writings Ex.5 and Ex.6 were obtained by him under compulsion. Regarding the CDs' concerning recording of the conversation between the husband and the wife she suggested to him that after locking her in the room he prepare