JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — Leave granted.

2. Parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are supposed to bring about the union of souls. It creates a new relationship of love, affection, care and concern between the husband and wife. According to Hindu Vedic philosophy it is sanskar-a sacra¬ment; one of the sixteen important sacrament essential to be taken during one’s lifetime. There may be physical union as a result of marriage for procreation to perpetuate the lineal progeny for ensuring spiritual salvation and performance of religious rites, but what is essentially contemplated is union of two souls. Marriage is considered to be a junction of three important duties i.e. social, religious and spiritual.

3. This case presents a very unpleasant tale of two highly educated professionals (doctors by profession) fighting a bitter matrimonial battle.

4. Background facts sans unnecessary details are as fol¬lows :

The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘husband’) and the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘wife’) tied nuptial knot on 10.10.1978. They were blessed with two children. Both are majors by now. The marriage was what is commonly known as ‘love marriage’. Appellant and the respondent were co-students in the medical college. They belong to different parts of the country; the appellant-husband is a Telugu Brahmin while the respondent - wife belongs to Sikh religion. They were both work¬ing in the hospital which was established by the appellant’s father Dr. A. Ram Murthy. Allegedly finding the behaviour of the respondent-wife obnoxious, humiliating and amounting to mental cruelty, a notice was given by the appellant-husband on 5.3.1997 seeking divorce by mutual consent to avoid unnecessary complica¬tions. It was stated therein that they had not shared the bed and there was no physical contact between them for over two years. It was indicated in the notice that the respondent had treated appel¬lant with cruelty and her conduct amounted to desertion for two years and was, therefore, neither safe, desirable nor advisable to continue marital relationship. A response was given by respon¬dent on 21.3.1997 denying the allegations. It was suggested that there should be a free and heart to heart discussion to sort out the problems for a harmonious married life. The aforesaid task which admittedly took place did not bring any result and ultimate¬ly a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the ‘Act’) was filed before Family Courts, Hyderabad. It was categorically stated therein that the behaviour and con¬duct of the respondent was causing immense emotional stress, mental agony,and there being no sharing of the bed and co-habi¬tation for more than two years, prayer was made to grant decree of divorce for dissolving the marriage between the parties. It was specifically stated that the respondent has ill-treated her husband, abused him in vulgar language n the home and at the hospital and at other places thereby causing mental agony, damage and loss personally and professionally and also in the social circle; allegations were made about his character. Caveats were filed at different places with a view to forestall legal action, and create an impression of innocence. Caveats were admittedly lodged at the wrong address of the appellant. Counter affidavit was filed by the respondent denying the allegations. It was stated that her bona fide acts in advising her husband to act properly and to be decent in his behaviour was misconstrued and was being projected as nagging and insulting behaviour. The peti¬tion for divorce was filed on unfounded allegations.

5. At this juncture it would be relevant to note that after the petition was filed by the appellant-husband, a suit for injunction bearing OA No. 89/97 in respect of right to practise in the hospital was filed by the respondent. The said suit was not objected to by the appellant and the suit was decreed on 20.11.1997. Subsequently, an execution pet