By the Court.—Marriages-be it for love or arranged—are demanding as well as fragile institution. It takes patience, effort, and faith to preserve them. Yet, they do fail. And if that happens then ‘are the defaulters entitled to take advantage of their own fault in divorce proceeding’—is the main question involved in this appeal.

THE FACTS

2. Dr. Tara Charan Agarwal (the Appellant) and Smt. Dr. Veena Agarwal (the Respondent) are allopathic doctors. They knew each others from the school days. They went to the same medical college, fell in love, and married on 17.1.1967, while completing their studies.

3. A son was born to them in June, 1970 but he died young within a few of days of his birth. A daughter was born on 21.12.1971. At present, she is married.

4. The Respondent was operated twice in 1973 and 1984 before the proceeding started and for the third time in 1988 during the proceeding.

5. Initially, the relations between the parties were happy. However, they started deteriorating after second operation, when the Respondent came to know about a letter (paper 39-Ka) said to be written by the Appellant to Shashi, the younger sister of the Respondent.

6. The relations came to an end when the Respondent discovered the two letters (photo-stat copies are 30-Ga and 31-Ga) said to be written by Shashi to the Appellant.

7. The Appellant filed matrimonial petition No. 618 of 1987 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) for divorce on the ground of cruelty. It was after husband-wife relations came to an end. The specific instances of cruelty were also alleged in paragraph 9 of the plaint.

8. The Respondent filed the written statement contesting the proceeding. She denied the specific instances alleged by the Appellant. She alleged that there was cruelty on the part of the Appellant in as much as,

The Appellant was carrying on an affair with Shashi;

The Appellant insisted that the Respondent should accommodate Shashi in the same house. This proposal was neither accepted by the Respondent nor by their daughter, who was student of intermediate at that time;

The Appellant tortured and threw tantrums on rejection of his proposal to accommodate Shashi in the house.

9. The Appellant examined the following witnesses:

Dr. Tara Charan Agarwal (PW-1): the Appellant himself. He deposed about the cruelty and the specific instances;

Sri Chandra Veer Singh (PW-2): an advocate and friend of the Appellant. He deposed about the incident dated 25.1.1987, when the Respondent is said to have refused to make tea;

Sri Ram Prakash Goyal (PW-3): the brother of the Appellant’s brother-in-law (Jijajee). He deposed about the incident dated 26.1.1987, when the Respondent is said to have used foul language for the Appellant;

Sri AS Kapoor (PW-4): the hand writing expert. He proved his report and opined that the hand writing in paper No. 39-Ka, the alleged love letter, is not in the Appellant’s hand writing.

10. The Respondent examined the following witnesses:

Dr. Veena Agarwal (DW-1): the Respondent herself. She denied the incidents narrated by the Appellant. She deposed about the affair of the Appellant with Shashi and cruelty on his part;

Sri Risal Uddin (DW-2): clerk in the Physiology Department. He proved the leave application given by the Respondent for granting leave from January 24th to 26th, 1987 for going to Gwalior;

Sri Suresh Chand (DW-3): the brother of the Respondent and Sashi. He had found the letter 39-Ka and deposed about the affair of the Appellant with Shashi;

Sri JP Tiwari (DW-4): the tax assistant in the Income Tax Department. He produced the income tax records for the year 1980-81 and 1981-82;

Sri Deepak Kashyap (DW-5): the hand writing expert. He proved his report and opined that hand writing in the paper No. 39-Ka is the Appellant’s handwriting.

11. Apart from other documents, the following documents were also filed:

Paper No. 39-Ka: The alleged love letter by the Appellant to Shashi;

30-Ga and 31-Ga: The photostat copies of the alleged love