The presumption of legitimacy of a child born during a valid marriage can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence, and not by a mere balance of probabilities.

D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the husband under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (for short the Act) against the dismissal of his petition for divorce by the Court of III Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhopal.

2. According to the husband's case, the parties were married on 18th of November, 1981. They both belonged to Bengali community. The husband is employed in the Post and Telegraph Department at Bhopal. The wife has now taken up service in Military Engineering Services on the post of Centre Incharge.

3. The present appeal was dismissed by this Court on 28.1.1992 only on the ground of bar of limitation by rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The husband preferred a special leave petition is the Supreme Court in which by order dated 25th April, 1994 the case has been remitted to this Court with directions to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to decide the same on merits on payment of cost of Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent/wife. It is on the directions of the Supreme Court and on compliance of the terms laid down therein that this case has been heard for decision on merits.

4. The husband seeks a decree of divorce against the wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty. In support of his case, he examined himself as A.W. 2. According to his version, their married life was not peaceful right from the beginning. It is alleged that his in-laws used to come to his house and quarrelled with him by insisting that he should separate from his parents. It is also alleged by him that the wife used to quarrel with him and leave his house to live with her parents as and when she desired. On 5.3.1982 his in-laws came to his house in his absence. They abused his mother and threatened her. His neighbours Vishakarma and Rai tried to pacify them, but they went back angrily. On that date, the wife also went alongwith her parents and later on offered a false excuse that she was taken for her examination. According to the husband, he thereafter number of times went to his in-laws to bring back the wife but they refused to send her and suggested that he would be provided with a plot in Bairagarh and he should live there.

5. According to the husband, on 19.1.1983 the wife gave birth to a male child. On that date he was on leave but the intimation of birth of the child was given to him through the Postpmaster in the Post Office. According to him, he had no physical contact with the wife from 5.3.1982 i.e. the date when the left the matrimonial home, till 19.1.1983 when the child was born. He, therefore, doubted the paternity of the child.

6. The husband instituted Matrimonial Case No. 138/83 for grant of divorce in the Court at Bhopal which according to him, ended on 6.4.1984 in the course of reconciliation proceedings in which on the suggestion of the Presiding Judge of the Matrimonial Court he brought the wife to his house. Thereafter, she lived with him for about a month but did not allow him any phusical contact. Her behaviour was not good and she did not participate in the domestic duties. Her in-laws continued to visit them and always quarrelled. During their joint living for a brief period of one month, she did not allow him any sexual intercourse and used to excuse him of being impotant. In cross-examination he stated that as and when he tried to establish physical contact she rebelled his advances by giving a threat that she would put herself to fire or jump form the balcony.

7. The husband in his statement also alleged adultery against the wife stating that he had received information that she had developed illicit relationship with a son of Hazari. According to him, she underwent an abortion of 9th of December, 1984 in the P.&. T. Dispensary (as per medical certificates Exs. P/2 and P/3 and discharge certificate Ex.P/4.) Tlie above abortion was done in the absence of the husband and without his consent.

8. On 15.7.1985,