The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of irretrievable break-down of marriage and the consideration of mutual allegations in determining the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

PRADIPTA RAY, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent filed an application under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion against the present appellant - wife. Originally the case was filed in the First Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack (now Civil Judge, Senior Division ). Subsequently upon constitution of the Family Court the said case was transferred to the Family Court. Cuttack and registered as Civil Proceeding No. 65 of 1991. On August 6, 1994 the said case was taken up by the Family Court. The present appellant filed an application for adjournment on the ground of illness. The Family Court rejected the said application and took up the hearing of the case ex parte. The evidence of the present respondent was recorded, and application allowed.

( 2 ) THE respondent-husband in his application has accused the wife of behavioural aberrations like indifference to the husband, children and house-hold affairs,neglect of the husband and his relations, showing disrespect to the parents of the husband, obstinacy, anger, frequent outbursts, wanton destructions of personal belongings of the husband, sexual coolness, suspecting, infliction of insult and humiliation to the husband. In his lengthy application the husband has given detailed account of the wife's alleged behaviour pattern, acts of cruelty and ultimate desertion.

( 3 ) THE wife-appellant has filed an equally lengthy written statement denying and controverting the allegations made in the application. In her written statement the wife has made serious counter-allegations against the behaviour and character of the husband describing him to be drunkard, womaniser, arrogant, oppressive and violent and accusing him of indulging in bestial activities including merciless beating of the wife.

( 4 ) CONSIDERING the materials on record and the mutual allegations of the parties, the Family Court held that the wife indulged in acts of mental cruelty and deserted the husband. The Family Court has also recorded that marital ties between the husband and the wife have broken down irretrievably and their relationship has reached a dead end. The Family Court granted an ex parte decree of divorce.

( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Family Court the wife has filed this appeal.

( 6 ) MR. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the appellant-wife has submitted that the Family Court committed error in rejecting the appellant's prayer for adjournment on the ground of her illness and in disposing of the case ex parte. He has pointed out that the wife-appellant cannot be accused of taking repeated adjournments to delay the proceeding in as much as on several occasions the wife was present, but the Court could not take up hearing for its own reasons. He has submitted a list of dates in support of the said contention. He has further contended that a prayer for adjournment on a particular date is to be considered on the basis of sufficiency of the reasons on the said particular occasion and it should not be mechanically rejected on the ground of previous adjournments or conduct.

( 7 ) MR. Pangari, learned Advocate for the respondent-husband has submitted that the appellant not having filed any application in the Family Court for setting aside the ex parte decree and having preferred appeal before the High Court challenging the decree on merits, she is not entitled to question the decree on the ground that it was ex parte and that the present appeal is to be decided on merit on the basis of the materials on record. In support of his submission Mr. Pangari has REFERRED TO a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Maya Devi v. Mehria Gram, Dall Mill, Hissar, AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 176 and a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nagar Palika Nigam Gwaliopr v. Motilal Munnalal, AIR 1977 M. P. 182.

( 8 ) IT appears from the records of the Family Court that on May 16, 1992 the wife's application for custody of the children was rej