JUDGMENT

Mears, C.J. - This is a perfectly simple and straightforward case. We are going to allow the appeal because we are of opinion that the Judge in the lower appellate Court, in considering what were the principles laid down in the case of Jafar Husain v. Ummat-ur-Rahman [1919] 41 All. 278, included in it a principle which the case does not warrant.

2. The suit was commenced by Mt. Rahiman Bibi. She was a young woman, who is said to have been a minor but may have been on the eve of her majority, or may an fact have been major at the time of the happening of the event complained of. She sued her husband for a dissolution of marriage, and her case was that having been married on the 21st of June 1922, her husband in September 1922 made an accusation against her that she had committed adultery, at first with a man whom he did not name but ultimately with a named relative, and as a result of that adultery she had become pregnant. He made that accusation at a moment when she had returned to his house, and demanded and received from her the jewels which he had given her on her marriage and turned her out of the house. That is to say, she remained during the rest of the night under her husband's roof. In the morning he sent for her relatives, charged her in their presence with adultery and said he wished to have no more to do with her. Thereupon they took her away. She has never since resided with her husband. The husband on other occasions made repeated charges to various people of the misconduct of his wife. The father of the lady apparently went to the people of the brotherhood and a great deal of time was occupied in trying to make arrangements either to settle the matter amicably or to bring about some form of matrimonial separation, and it came to me as a considerable, astonishment, that this suit, commenced as it was on the 2nd of January 1924, was brought 15 months after the accusation had been made. In ordinary circumstances I should have said that a delay for that length showed that the lady really did not feel so outraged by the accusation as to entitle her to relief. The gap has to some extent been satisfactorily filled up by the interviews and negotiations which the father had with members of the brotherhood and I am satisfied that the charge shocked and outraged the feelings of the lady.

3. The plaint sets out the facts I have narrated and adds:

The plaintiff was put to great disgrace on account of the false accusations and suffered a mental pain.

4. She asked that she might be given a dissolution of her marriage. The defendant who throughout the whole proceedings has behaved badly chose to adopt a line which he knew to be false. He asserted that he had never made any defamatory statement with regard to his wife. He added (quite truly) that she was a woman of good character and chaste. When the matter came up before Mr. Man Mohan Sanyal, he tried it with great care and he came to a conclusion of fact with regard to the charge, which was undoubtedly right. He believed that notwithstanding the denial of the husband in his, written statement, and his denial on oath in the box that he was telling falsehoods, and the learned Subordinate Judge gave a decision in favour of the lady.

5. Before, however, that happened a very curious incident took place. The evidence on both sides had been recorded and the defendant was advised to make a retraction. He was in a position of very great difficulty, because he had already sworn on oath that he had never accused this lady of adultery, and he had the hardihood to do this notwithstanding that he had bean opposed in the witness-box by witness after witness of undoubted probity, who swore to his having made this accusation when he was face to face with them. Therefore when he wished to make a retraction, he could not do so because the essential element of a retraction is the withdrawal of a statement previously made. An admission might have and indeed should have involved him in proceeding