Honble PRASAD, J. – By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Nohar, dated 1.12.1992.

(2). The basic arguments of the counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court has proceeded to decree the application for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The alleged cruelty fell short of the standards which would be required to prove cruelty. However, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the husband had attained that kind of mental cruelty that he cannot now live with the wife, and therefore, this cruelty is sufficient to annul the marriage.

(3). The arguments of the counsel for the appellant is that the cruelty was on the part of the husband and he cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. His allegations against the wife are of general nature and they does not constitute cruelty by itself. On the contrary, the un-proved allegation of adultery levelled by the husband against the appellant-wife is of a character that it can be safely inferred that the husband was on the wrong.

(4). If the trial Courts finding is taken into consideration that the husband has failed to prove the mis-behaviour of the w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document