MUKHERJI, J. ( 1 ) THE history of this matrimonial litigation by the husband Bejoy Daw, now appellant, against his wife Aloka Daw, now respondent, for restitution of conjugal rights divides itself into four stages: i. August 14, 1957, when Bejoy aged 30 or thereabouts and Aloka aged 20 or thereabouts, Hindus both, were married according to Hindu rites, to May, 1958, when Bejoy reached Aloka from the matrimonial home to her mother's place at 92a, Bhupendra Bose Avenue, Calcutta, for her impending confinement. II. February 3, 1958, from when Bejoy started inflicting upon Aloka vitriolic letters to November 26, 1958, when Bejoy sent his younger brother with a chit to Aloka, making a peremptory demand for return, through the bearer of the chit, of all ornaments and articles given her by all his people, threatening her with dire consequences in case of non-compliance with such ultimatum and carrying out the threat by having swooped down upon his wife's place: An act which led to a rough-and-trumble or maramari, as both Bejoy and Aloka, in the midst of their so many differences, put it in their evidence. During this period, to be precise, on or about July 20, 1958, Aloka was delivered of a female child. III. August 8, 1960, from when Bejoy started writing one letter after another, mostly to Aloka, one to her eldest brother and one to her mother, pleading for Aloka's return to the matrimonial home, with the precaution of sending such letters by registered post with acknowledgement due and keeping a carbon copy of each, to March 28, 1962, when Bejoy's matrimonial suit No. 2 of 1961 against Aloka instituted on January 3, 1961, for judicial separation, was permitted to be withdrawn, with costs, Aloka pressed for and the Judge granted. IV. IV. April 1, 1962, from when Bejoy took to writing letters again, mostly to Aloka and one to her brother Mrityunjoy Datta, c/o Reliance Stores (Pvt) Ltd. , 92, Bhupendra Bose Avenue, Calcutta, with the same type of double precaution: (i) by registered post with acknowledgement due and (ii) keeping a carbon copy of each, the refrain of which letters is that Aloka, whose, return to the matrimonial home is longed for, should come back soon enough, to September 4, 1962, when the present cause, matrimonial suit No. 73 of 1962, for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted - a cause which has been dismissed and out of which the appeal, we are now adjudicating upon, has arisen. ( 2 ) THE first stage presents to problem. The correspondence that is seen in and about this period is quite the normal exchange of letters to and from between Bejoy and Aloka, the newly married couple. Here is a resume of such letters, interspersed with comments, resting on evidence: (1) A letter without date by Aloka from Calcutta to Bejoy at Asansole where his father and third witness, Sanatan Daw, is the Managing Director of Asansole Electric Supply Co. Ltd. , bearing the postal mark of asansole with date November 5, 1957, ex. 1 (u ). By this letter Aloka answers Bejoy's of November 1 previous. Two matters herein deserve special notice. One, Bejoy writes, Aloka says that she should have all his endearment to the exclusion of everybody else. But, Aloka reports, he may as well-receive endearment from his father when he comes to him. More, she points out, Bejoy chats and chats with his friends, plays cards with them and has his outings too in their company. That is not to be reckoned against him. But for her the yardstick is different. Bejoy makes a point of Aloka's devoting all her attention and time to him. Two, one Bardi of Serampore, she will certainly call one day and write to her too, after she has called so. (Bardi literally means older sister or cousin. But Bardi referred to here is not either. She is Sm. But for her the yardstick is different. Bejoy makes a point of Aloka's devoting all her attention and time to him. Two, one Bardi of Serampore, she will certainly call one day and write to her too, after she has called so. (Bardi literally means older sister or cousin. But Bardi referred to here is not either. She is Sm. Snehalata Das, the appellant's second witness in the Court below, a widowed nurse, aged about 37 in 1957, who tended Bejoy's father Sanatan when he had gone down with an attack of typhoid in 1955 or thereabouts, became 'thick' with the family, and looks upon Bejoy as her son, as she says in her evidence, no matter that Bejoy calls her Bardi ). A letter as this begins with 'sricharnesu;, meaning 'to the auspicious feet of the addressee', and ends with 'your Rani', presumably her pet name, after making enquiries about Bejoy's health how he carries on with the problem of his food, who does the cooking etc. (2) A letter bearing date December 9, 1957, from Aloka to Bejoy, ex. 1 (s ). Similarly addressed and similarly concluded, this letter contains, inter alia: (i) Bejoy, during his last visit at Aloka's promised to write toher first on his arrival at Asansole, but has failed to keep such promise. Yet she is the first to write. Therefore, she adds: ?your anger melts - eh? - Darling, do write to me this time. ? (ii) That Bardi again. Her address is missing. So Bejoy is asked to send it once more whereupon Aloka promises to write to her. (iii) The anxiety about Bejoy's food problem continues. Who is cooking? The servant? Or is Bejoy helping himself with the aid of a cooker? (3) A letter dated December 19, 1957, from Aloka to Bejoy, ex. 1 (o ). By this letter, similarly addressed and similarly concluded, Aloka answers Bejoy's received on Tuesday preceding. Bardi's letter has greeted her earlier than that, but as her address she could not get, she was late in replying thereto. According to Bejoy's advice, she, pregnant then, has been exerting herself a little. In the letter under reply, apparently Bejoy wanted to know for how many days her pregnancy was running, which elicits from Aloka: oh ! Bardi's letter has greeted her earlier than that, but as her address she could not get, she was late in replying thereto. According to Bejoy's advice, she, pregnant then, has been exerting herself a little. In the letter under reply, apparently Bejoy wanted to know for how many days her pregnancy was running, which elicits from Aloka: oh ! You know not for how many days it has been running, and you are asking me so: then she informs Bejoy that she had been to the pictures to see the film 'pathey Halo Deri' and expresses her desire to see one or two more. (4) A letter hearing date dec 21, 1957, by Bejoy from Asansole to Aloka at Calcutta, ex. A (4 ). By this letter, Bejoy address aloka as 'priyatama', the most dearly beloved one, makes a grievance of so great a delay on her part in replying to his, and of the shortage of postage-stamp of 2 np. only on her letter, for which he had to pay 4 np. at his end, and presumably breaks into a jest that such a mistake was 'fatal' for her. About Aloka's pregnancy, the letter reads: really I cannot calculate the duration of your pregnancy. Count from the day when your last menstruation ended, add 9 days thereto and then you get the correct figure. Bejoy then expresses his relief at the news that Aloka has been keeping good health and hints the possibility of his coming down to Calcutta on January ?, 1958. Apparently, Bejoy is thirsting for amorous letters from Aloka. Hence he writes: well! Have you nothing else to write in your letters? Do you write to me only out of defence to our relationship? and he continues, after advising Aloka to write to his mother, without expecting any reply from her, because she has not upto this day written to anybody: keep an eye on your own health. Because you are not alone now. Do go through a little bit of physical exertion. . . . . So lonely do I feel! I long to have you by me. But you are not coming. Then, Bejoy reminds Aloka of her failure to inform him about her mother and other members of the family, and concludes: now-a-days you go to the cinema without informing me. What other pictures do you want to go to? . . . . So lonely do I feel! I long to have you by me. But you are not coming. Then, Bejoy reminds Aloka of her failure to inform him about her mother and other members of the family, and concludes: now-a-days you go to the cinema without informing me. What other pictures do you want to go to? Must be those with Uttam and Suchitra? take my love. I send my love blended with affection. Reply sharp. ( 3 ) I have done my own rendering into English deviating here and there from the translation of the Bengali letter in the paper-book which has not put the torn pieces of the letter in proper order, with the result that the very order of the letter has been broken, the contents thereof having been thrown upside down at places. I have done my own translation of other letter as well. ( 4 ) SUCH contemporaneous letters speak for themselves. Leaving aside periodic small rubs - and a married life which is free from any such rub must be rate indeed - what we see is a happy couple, one pining for the other. So, up to the end of December, 1957, there happened little to break the home, no matter what the mutual recriminations between Bejoy and Aloka have been in the prior litigation - matrimonial suit No. 2 of 1961 - or here. Taking our stand on this, after we had an exhaustive opening from Mr. Bankim Dutta, appearing for Bejoy, we proceeded to do our duty, in terms of Section 23, sub-section (2), of the Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), to bring about a reconciliation between Bejoy and Aloka, in the fond hope that they would go back to those happy days of August-December, 1957 and start their life over again from there, completely blotting out from their mind and that had happened meanwhile, irrespective of the right or wrong of either. We, therefore, invited them to our chamber, putting aside Counsel, as indeed Counsel themselves wanted us to do, and pleaded with Bejoy and Aloka to give their married life a trial at least for a month, to start with. But our pleading went in vain. Aloka was in dread of Bejoy who, she apprehended, would arrange things in such a manner that it would facilitate his having a divorce on false allegations. But our pleading went in vain. Aloka was in dread of Bejoy who, she apprehended, would arrange things in such a manner that it would facilitate his having a divorce on false allegations. She, therefore, expressed her determination not to return to the matrimonial home even for a month. Bejoy addressed her, with our permission, and pointed out to her that three lives - her own, Bejoy's and the child's - were being ruined by her intransigence. But she remained adamant, because of her husband's past conduct and utterances. Since that was troubling Aloka, we suggested to Bejoy whether or not he could see his way to express sincere regret for what she was feeling sore about. Bejoy said: 'if you so direct, I am ready to express my regret?. We at once made it clear, direct we would not, for reconciliation is reconciliation, not coercion, far less judicial coercion. But an expression of regret would even not move Aloka a whit, because she was unable to rely upon her husband's word. So, it was futile to proceed further and, much to our disappointment, our endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties failed. For that, we blame neither Aloka nor Bejoy. If Aloka is within her right to refuse return to the matrimonial home, Bejoy is enqually within his right not to go further than he has gone. We, therefore, enter into the merits of the appeal with an open mind, and without the slightest prejudice to either, for the stance each takes, during our attempt to effect a reconciliation. ( 5 ) WE now reach the second stage of this matrimonial litigation. There appears to be no better way of describing what happened during this period than noticing the telling contents of the letters and the material events, in order of date. ( 6 ) A letter bearing date, February 3, 1958, by Bejoy from Asansole to Aloka at Calcutta, ex. A (2), both in the present matrimonial litigation (No. 73 of 1960) and the previous one (No. 2 of 1961 ). It is not necessary to reproduce the whole of this letter which runs into some length. Suffice it to notice that here Bejoy addresses his wife as simply Aloka, and not the most dearly beloved one, as he did in his letter of December 21, 1957, ex. It is not necessary to reproduce the whole of this letter which runs into some length. Suffice it to notice that here Bejoy addresses his wife as simply Aloka, and not the most dearly beloved one, as he did in his letter of December 21, 1957, ex. A (4), noticed in para 2 ante, and to reproduce the following excerpts, not very short either: (I) One of your locality reported to me something about you and your second brother. I have come to know that the affair concerning the milkmaid in the shop (presumably Reliance Stores Pvt. Ltd.) is true and nothing but true. What will the affair concerning you turn out to be true or false? Some suspicion I had even before, though I had not told you so. But now a conviction has grown in me about you. Can you say what was the necessity of all this? To be settled in social life and then. . . . . . . . is it not so? Think you, you have triumphed by having deceived me so? Listen, I say very calmly: No, it is of no consequence to me. Now-a-days there is the law, by virtue of which marriage can be dissolved. To such dissolution I am fully agreeable. And this will be to your advantage and good too. Let me know your views. A little trouble, that one, who is coming to us (meaning the child then in the Womb of Aloka), will put me to. But what can it matter either? If you win in Court, you will get maintenance, should you claim so. But I have decided, I shall give away, the one that is coming, to somebody else. Consider the marriage of ours a marriage really? For my part I have never considered it so; nor shall I be able to consider it so ever. To me it seems, it is a child's play. The very thought of getting a letter written by you and of reading it is filling me or does fill me with hatred. So communicate to Bardi (the real Bardi, i. e. , the elder sister of Bejoy, and not Snehalata, as Bejoy makes it clear in his evidence) by a letter your views on the dissolution of our marriage. (II) After having broken all my ties, I shall again build my life a new. So communicate to Bardi (the real Bardi, i. e. , the elder sister of Bejoy, and not Snehalata, as Bejoy makes it clear in his evidence) by a letter your views on the dissolution of our marriage. (II) After having broken all my ties, I shall again build my life a new. If a sense of shame seizes you to let Bardi know your views, write to me and me alone straight off. And what shame can a shame you? Because all sense of shame you cast off long, long ago. (III) Forget not, even impertinence has its limits. Listen I am telling you the truth today. I had thought, you would learn if taught you would listen if told, and you could perhaps adjust yourself a little. But, believe me, you and yours, by your behaviour, by your stinginess, by your lack of a liberal outlook, made mi mind rebel; yet I had a faint hope. That is why I professed a wee bit of a love - and lip love at that - to you. More, with a view to satisfying my urge, I put in a few good words to you as well. But, truth to tell, I loved you never. Now, all my urge has been met in part. I have tasted your body. Hence, I am not after you and more. Today I am in search of another. (IV) Bardi knows me well-enough. Know something of me from her. (V) You will be known as Bejoy's wife. But really I do not like you. (VI) Look here, I say again, I do not want you. Can you help me a little on this, for my part, I am agreeable to severe all connections with you, and that too in writing. My marrying you have increased my trouble a little. (vii) It is possible to abandon you. That I can too. But abandoning my mother? Never. (VIII) On the envelope I have written Rani. But don't you take it as a token of my love for you. It is a mere show. ( 7 ) A letter bearing date April 9, 1958, written by Bejoy from Asansole to Aloka in Calcutta, ex. A (1), both in the present matrimonial litigation (No. 73 of 1962) and the previous one (No. 2 of 1961 ). But don't you take it as a token of my love for you. It is a mere show. ( 7 ) A letter bearing date April 9, 1958, written by Bejoy from Asansole to Aloka in Calcutta, ex. A (1), both in the present matrimonial litigation (No. 73 of 1962) and the previous one (No. 2 of 1961 ). Here Bejoy expresses his annoyance that his most dearly beloved Rani's letter to Bardi has not reached her, speaks of a comment made by one of the members of Rani's family (as reported to him) on the undesirability of having any truck with Bardi, a mere nurse, belonging to a different caste and social order and, therefore, an object of hatred, and threatens: where my mother and Bardi are insulted and slighted, i do not set my foot upon. So, I shall not come to yours ever. He charges Aloka's mother with insincerity and refers to other matters, such as Aloka getting exhausted and, therefore, taking water, to write out a letter, the envelope in which her letters are contained, bearing marks of water and necessarily getting blurred etc. ( 8 ) A letter bearing date April 15, 1958, by Aloka from Calcutta to Bejoy at Asansole, ex. 1 (p), in this matrimonial litigation only (No. 73 of 1962 ). Aloka is answering Bejoy's letter of April 9 previous, just noticed. A delay of six days only, and still she apologizes for this little, saying: pray, darling, do not be angry. She maintains that she did get a letter to Bardi posted along with two more - one to Bejoy and another to Sejdi, both of whom received them all right, but not Bardi. She had nothing to gain by telling a lie about having written to Bardi. Again, she gets neither exhausted nor does she take water in writing out her letters. But water is used to see that the flap of the envelope sticks. ( 9 ) ONE conclusion appears to be clear enough from this letter of Aloka bearing date April 15, 1958, that Bejoy's letter bearing date February 3, 1958 (para 5) and coming from the custody of Aloka was received by her people but withheld from her. That is the conclusion we are asked on behalf of the appellant to draw. And we draw just that conclusion. More of which hereafter. That is the conclusion we are asked on behalf of the appellant to draw. And we draw just that conclusion. More of which hereafter. ( 10 ) A letter bearing date May 14, 1958, by Aloka from Calcutta to Bejoy at Asansole, ex. 1 (b), in this matrimonial suit only (No. 73 of 1962 ). Aloka isnow with her mother and brothers at Calcutta where Bejoy has reached her for the impending confinement. The date of Aloka's previous letter, and from Calcutta too, is April 15, 1958, ex. 1 (p), just noticed. And the date of the present one is May 13, 1958. April 15, 1958 to May 13, 1958, is not even a month. So, Aloka's stay at her matrimonial home has been for a short period only. Indeed, Aloka's stay with her husband, during the whole of the married life from August 14, 1957, the date of the marriage, to May, 1958, when she came to Calcutta for confinement - a total period of some nine months has been 30 or 35 days in all, as Bejoy says in his evidence. Be that as it may, by this letter of May 13, 1958, Aloka says, she is at a loss to understand why Bejoy has not written to her. She says too, she has received from Bardi a letter to which she would reply in a day or two, enquired about Bejoy's health, and wants to know where her father-in-law now is; at Baranagar or at Asansole. ( 11 ) SO here is another letter of Aloke bearing date May 13, 1958, which clearly shows that Bejoy's highly intemperate letter of February 3, 1958 (para 5) was withheld from her. If she had received and read such letter, she could not have written what she written statement writing on April 15, 1958, (para 7) and also on May 13, 1958, (para 9 ). We accept the contention on behalf of the appellant to that end. But we return to the topic, as we have to, soon enough (para 20 infra ). ( 12 ) A letter, written in pencil, and bearing date June 3, 1958, by Bejoy from Baranagar to Aloka at Calcutta, ex. A (3), in this matrimonial litigation (No. 73 of 1962) and also in the previous one (No. 2 of 1961 ). But we return to the topic, as we have to, soon enough (para 20 infra ). ( 12 ) A letter, written in pencil, and bearing date June 3, 1958, by Bejoy from Baranagar to Aloka at Calcutta, ex. A (3), in this matrimonial litigation (No. 73 of 1962) and also in the previous one (No. 2 of 1961 ). By this letter Bejoy is sprouting venom again, even though Aloka is in a very delicate health then. Here are some of the specimens of such venom: (I) I have told your brothers, who called on us, I have not been happy with my marriage. I have no attachment for you, I want a divorce. I have also given them a bit of my mind about certain cheese-paring acts of theirs. (II) The liar of a mother - your mother - has cheated me, Your people still owe me about Rs. 3,500. That I have not disclosed to your brothers. But I have given them to understand that I have a claim which is just, and that if they meet it you have a place in my home perhaps as a maid; otherwise not, I have told them too that I hate you. (III) I gather, you will be confined early in Asarh next. But how that can happen fails me. On Sravan 29, I had connection with you. I hate to call it marriage. On Bhadra 1 or 2, you had your monthly course. Not that I got proof of it, but I took you at your word. Then you had menstruation on Aswin 8 or 10, as you told me while at Asansole. So, I do not quite understand how can have a baby in 7/8 months' time. Were you then simulating what was not real? Well done? (IV) Some had cast aspersions against your character. Now I find that they spoke the truth. You are a fallen woman and a prostitute. It is not possible for me to live with a whore. (V) Show this letter, if you so like, to your mother and brothers. I have no objection to that. Discuss the mater with them and arrange to get a divorce quickly enough. I am ever ready for this. (VI) Return the ornaments I gave you. I shall need them latter. (VII) Look here, truly do I want freedom from you. (V) Show this letter, if you so like, to your mother and brothers. I have no objection to that. Discuss the mater with them and arrange to get a divorce quickly enough. I am ever ready for this. (VI) Return the ornaments I gave you. I shall need them latter. (VII) Look here, truly do I want freedom from you. If you have loved me a little any day, for the sake of that love, I say, I long for freedom from you for good. (VIII) When I told your people about my claim, I had no knowledge of your impending confinement in 7/8 months' time. Had I known that, I would not have told them about my claim. However, that is for good. Such letter appears to be out of joint with his earlier letter to December 21, 1957, (para 2) where he tells Aloka how to calculate the total period of her pregnancy and enjoins her to keep an eye on her health, as she is not alone. ( 13 ) A postcard, bearing two postal seals, one of Baranagar dated July 16, 1958, and another of Shyambazar dated July 17, 1958, written by Bejoy Daw to Aloka Datta (not Daw), ex. A (5) in both the litigations - No. 2 of 1961 and No. 73 of 1962. Bejoy falls foul of Aloka's mother who, he complains, spoke ill of his mother before a certain garland-maker in Madanmohantola and says: (I) I never pardon one who speaks ill of my mother or insults her. Tell your mother to announce in a stentorian voice: 'i, Bejoy, do not want to live with her daughter Aloka. Why not, let her say too, and with a drummer, if her voice cannot rise to the occasion'. What a shame! Your mother is old enough, with one foot on the grave. Yet she cannot shun the habit of speaking ill of others for nothing. (II) To receive alms is more difficult for me than to give alms. To you, however, it is just the opposite. So, you could not resist the temptation of receiving the valuable shari - eh? That must be so because of your breeding. (III) I have told my mother emphatically not to bring you home any time. Should my mother not heed what I say, know this, for certain, my sheer neglect towards you will be fatal. So, you could not resist the temptation of receiving the valuable shari - eh? That must be so because of your breeding. (III) I have told my mother emphatically not to bring you home any time. Should my mother not heed what I say, know this, for certain, my sheer neglect towards you will be fatal. And I shall arrange things in such a way that you have to remove yourself from our home soon enough. (IV) I have said so previously - and I repeat it even now - that your brothers and mother are the cause of your miseries in life. Your mother was first responsible in part. And now she is responsible in full. If your life goes to waste, it will be so, for one who is a miser, a knave and a liar, and for another who is a Satan given to lying. (V) I say even now, I do want a divorce. I do, because whenever I may look at you, it will come back to my mind that you are a descendant of those Satans, and the whole of my mind will be poisoned. So, divorce will do good to both of us. ( 14 ) SUCH then is the letter of Bejoy to Aloka written on or about July 16, 1958. So much crammed in so little a postcard. ( 15 ) A letter bearing date September 25, 1958, by Aloka from Calcutta to Bejoy at Asansole, ex. 1 (t), in the present matrimonial suit only (No. 73 of 1962 ). Aloka, unware of the letters of Bejoy, bearing dates June 3, 1958 (para 11) and July 16, 1958 (para 12), as rightly contended on behalf of the appellant, is writing to her husband today (September 25, 1958), a normal letter a wife writes to her husband. The points deserving of notice are - (I) Bejoy did not call on them another day, as he promised he would. (II) Aloka, now a mother, would have written earlier, but for the infant daughter, who goes with one illness after another, and robs her of her sleep. (III) Why does not Bejoy come to have a look at his daughter? That the father is not coming to see his first-born is being talked about. Certainly this is not a pleasant thing to hear. (III) Why does not Bejoy come to have a look at his daughter? That the father is not coming to see his first-born is being talked about. Certainly this is not a pleasant thing to hear. (IV) Bejoy should write to her, as he was doing before, with the name of Bardi inscribed at the top (presumably the real Bardi ). Unless she hears from Bejoy, how would she know that he was receiving her letter? (V) Let Bejoy choose a name for the child. ( 16 ) CERTAINLY it may be said, as has been said on behalf of the appellant, if Aloka had known the contents of Bejoy's letters, bearing dates June 3, 1958 and July 16, 1958 (paras 11 and 12), questioning the paternity of their child, calling her a whore, expressing his determination, time and again, for a divorce, no less for her expulsion from the matrimonial home, she could not have written the letter she did on September 25, 1958 - the letter that has just been reviewed. ( 17 ) 8. A chit, bearing date November 26, 1968, by Bejoy to Aloka, ex. A, in both the litigations : No. 2 of 1961 and No. 73 of 1962. Bejoy is desperate now. He writes here: send back immediately and this very day through the bearer of this letter all the ornaments and article you received from my parents, brother-in-law and all. No threat this. But if you fail to do what I ask you to, and peaceably as well, I shall create a situation, so ugly, for getting our things back. Send too the iron bangle with gold coating my mother had given you, as also the suit-case. Reason? Well, the woman I marry again, my newly wedded wife, will use them all. Bring those things, are ours, I must, creating a bad enough scene, if you are in no mood to send them. If you have any sense of honour and prestige, send them you must. ( 18 ) THIS is the letter of ultimatum Bejoy's brother carried to Aloka. But it yielded no result, though Bejoy spared no effort to hurt her most, by demanding back even the iron bangle, which a Hindu woman, with her husband living, cannot go without, in this part of the country, no less by speaking, with a fiendish delight, of his new wife to come. But it yielded no result, though Bejoy spared no effort to hurt her most, by demanding back even the iron bangle, which a Hindu woman, with her husband living, cannot go without, in this part of the country, no less by speaking, with a fiendish delight, of his new wife to come. Indeed, it was incapable of yielding any result. Because, most of the ornaments and things Aloka had left behind in the matrimonial home, as Aloka says. Quite a believable version. Sure enough, she did not bring them all along with her when she came to her mother's place for confinement. And the few ornaments she had on her person she could not part with them, no matter what the ultimatum was and who the bearer of that nasty chit was. ( 19 ) THE matter did not end there. Bejoy came to his wife's place and there was a rough-and-tumble, Bejoy attributing it to Aloka's brothers having not allowed him to see her and assaulted him, and Aloka attributing it to the attempt on the part of Bejoy to snatch away the ornaments off her person and her brothers intervening, though she admits, she heard subsequently of much maramari. Not that she had seen it, through she had seen her brother later with a bandage on. Whichever version is true, that there was a scene, nasty scene, which Bejoy threatened in that chit to create, is manifest. ( 20 ) THEN, there followed a lull. No more vituperative letters, and for a little more than eight months. Bejoy resorted to another method. And this brings us to the third stage of this litigation. From August 8, 1960 to September 19, 1960, he wrote eight letters - six to Aloka, one to her mother and one to her Barda (eldest brother): exs. 1 (e) and 1 (n) to Aloka, 1 (m) to Aloka's mother, 1 (k) to Aloka again, 1 (i) to Aloka's Barda, 1 (Judge), 1 (l) and 1 (h) to Aloka once more. Very nice letters are they if one has to go by the language in which they are couched. Aloka's return home with the child is the theme of such letters, expressed in different ways. But not a word do we find here expressing genuine regret for the nauseating letters reviewed above. Very nice letters are they if one has to go by the language in which they are couched. Aloka's return home with the child is the theme of such letters, expressed in different ways. But not a word do we find here expressing genuine regret for the nauseating letters reviewed above. And then Bejoy was cautious enough to send such letters by registered post with acknowledgement due, as is evident from the postal receipts, exs. 3 series, and what is more, to keep carbon copies thereof: vide the exhibits of 1 series just mentioned. It needs no imagination to see that these are all sham letters by which Bejoy was preparing the ground for a matrimonial cause, which indeed he did raise for judicial separation on January 3, 1961, not even four months after the last letter to Aloka on September 19, 1960: ex. 1 (h ). The plaint of that cause (matrimonial suit no. 2 of 1961) is ex. B. ( 21 ) DURING the carriage of that suit, on March 23, 1962, Aloka gave out on cross-examination: i was willing to go to my husband's house before this suit. But how can I go there now after this suit and after all the allegations that he has made against me? Vide her recorded evidence in that trial: ex. 2. By then, i. e. , March 23, 1962, all those vitriolic letters of Bejoy reviewed above, were exhibited. Indeed, they were exhibited on the day previous March 22, 1962, as the exhibit marks with dates over the signatures of the trial Judge go to show. More, she, had knowledge of those revolting letters, as her averment in para 5, of her written statement, verified on February 15, 1963, goes to show an averment which is true to her knowledge. It is, therefore, not right to say, as has been said on behalf of the appellant, that Aloka knew nothing of the nauseating contents of such letters which were withheld from her brothers for some time only. ( 22 ) THEREUPON, on Bejoy's petition, praying for withdrawal of his matrimonial suit for judicial separation (Suit No. 2 of 1961), the Judge allowed him to withdraw it, but with costs, Aloka had pressed for: vide Order No. 7 dated March 18, 1962: ex. D. ( 23 ) HERE ends the third stage of this litigation. ( 22 ) THEREUPON, on Bejoy's petition, praying for withdrawal of his matrimonial suit for judicial separation (Suit No. 2 of 1961), the Judge allowed him to withdraw it, but with costs, Aloka had pressed for: vide Order No. 7 dated March 18, 1962: ex. D. ( 23 ) HERE ends the third stage of this litigation. Only four days later, begins the fourth stage. From April 1, 1962, Bejoy started writing letters again to Aloka, exs. 1 (d), 1, 1 (a), the last bearing date May 25, 1962, and also Aloka's brother Mritunjoy: exs. 1 (g) and 1 (e), one being almost a duplicate of the other and bearing the same date July 10, 1962. The burden of such letters is that for the sake of the innocent child Aloka should come back to the matrimonial home, irrespective of what happened in the past. The same precaution again of sending such letters by registered post with acknowledgement due and of keeping carbon copies thereof. Bejoy was preparing the ground again for another matrimonial cause. So come his lawyer's letters dated August 6, 1962, exs. 1 (f) and A (6), threatening Aloka with proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. And on September 4, the present proceedings for just that were instituted. ( 24 ) SUCH being the history of this unfortunate litigation, it is contended on behalf of the appellant: what has he, the appellant, done disentitling him to restitution of conjugal rights since the withdrawal by him of his former suit for judicial separation on March 28, 1962, but for which Aloka was willing to return to her husband, as she says in her evidence? That is not, in our judgment, the right way to look at the matter, nothing to say of the fact that such a contention attributes to Aloka only part of what she says in her evidence. No doubt she says: i was willing to go to my husband's house before the suit. This, however, is not all she says: She says too: but how can I go thereafter the suit and after all the allegations he has made against me? No doubt she says: i was willing to go to my husband's house before the suit. This, however, is not all she says: She says too: but how can I go thereafter the suit and after all the allegations he has made against me? and what type of allegations: The vilest that a husband can make against his wife, as noticed, while reviewing the contents of Bejoy's letters bearing dates, February 3, 1958 (para 5), June 3, 1958 (para 11), and with the postal seal dated July 16, 1958 (para 12 ). More, such allegations are false, and false to the knowledge of Bejoy who makes no attempt, as indeed he cannot, to substantiate them, but admits on the other hand tht he had abused her so out of anger, though, upon evidence, we find no cause for such shocking outburst. The only fault of Aloka appears to be that her brothers did not pay her the dowry which Bejoy considers to be his own and so just a claim at that on his part (para 11 ). After such horrible baseless allegations, it is idle to say that Aloka has no reasonable excuse to withdraw herself from the society of her husband, within the meaning of Section 9, sub-section (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955. We cannot conceive of anything more reasonable, showing as it does mental cruelty of the basest type inflicted upon Aloka by Bejoy. ( 25 ) IT is then contended on the authority of the majority decision in (1) Lachman Utamchand Kirpalini v. Meena alias Mota, AIR 1964 SC 40 that these letters of February 3, June 3, and July 16, 1958, in extremely had taste though they are, had no impact on Aloka, as Lachman Kirpalini's letter dated 1. 4. 1955, attributing to his wife Meena outrageous conduct, reckless life, wild ventures, desertion and choosing the path of pleasure and perversion had no effect on her mind. But Aloka and Meena bear no comparison. Even after that letter of April 1, 1955, Meena wrote to Lachman Kirpalini on April 12 the following, addressing him as my dearest husband, characterizing the accusations hurled against her as merely the product of his hallucination, and promising to return to him and his dear son Ashok, so soon as her health was completely improved. Say this of Aloka? Even after that letter of April 1, 1955, Meena wrote to Lachman Kirpalini on April 12 the following, addressing him as my dearest husband, characterizing the accusations hurled against her as merely the product of his hallucination, and promising to return to him and his dear son Ashok, so soon as her health was completely improved. Say this of Aloka? She would have gone back to her husband but for the previous suit and the allegations he made against her. And the allegations are as dirty as unfounded. Meena attached no importance to her husband's outpourings, as held by their Lordships, Subba Rao, C. J. (then Subba Rao, J.) dissenting. Aloka attaches the greatest importance to such mean allegations which need not be repeated. And who would not, placed in her predicament? Naturally, she could not rely on such a one, as she says, when he changed his tactics from August, 1960 and commenced writing conciliatory letters, not with a genuine change of hear, but with a view to laying the foundation of a future litigation. Apart from the consideration that a case cannot be an authority on a point of fact: (2) Neta Ram v. Jewanlal, AIR 1963 SC 499 what has been said of Meena in the context of facts there cannot be said of Aloka in the context of facts her. A husband cannot inflict the worst type of mental cruelty upon his wife by calling her a prostitute, a whore, a fallen woman, from whom, he goes on repeating, he wants an immediate divorce, by questioning in a most shameful and shameless manner the paternity of his own child, by threatening to give away the child to somebody else, by demanding back all the ornaments and presents given her for his new wife to come, etc. and yet seek restitution of conjugal rights. ( 26 ) ON this consideration alone, it must be held that Bejoy's matrimonial cause for restitution of conjugal rights has been rightly dismissed by the trial Judge. In the circumstances, it has become unnecessary to deal with the other plea of Aloka, one of desertion, in answer to the relief by way of restitution of conjugal rights Bejoy prays the Court for. ( 27 ) THERE is another consideration yet. In the circumstances, it has become unnecessary to deal with the other plea of Aloka, one of desertion, in answer to the relief by way of restitution of conjugal rights Bejoy prays the Court for. ( 27 ) THERE is another consideration yet. The Court may decree restitution of conjugal rights, not that the Court must, as is the mandate of section 9, sub-section (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, provided that Bejoy can claim as follows: (1) Aloka has, without reasonable cause, withdrawn from his society. (2) The Court is satisfied about the truth of the statement made in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights. (3) There is no legal ground why such petition should not be granted. This is independent of the pleas available to Aloka under Section 9, sub-section (2), as emphasized by P. N. Mookerjee, J. , sitting with D. Basu, J. , in (3) Sm. Rebarani Sen Gupta v. Ashit Sen Gupta, AIR 1965 Cal 162 where the defence of the wife as to cruelty and torture was disbelieved, and yet the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights failed, because of his failure to prove that he made an attempt to bring back his wife to the matrimonial home. ( 28 ) NOW, judged by this test, the three requirements of Section 9, sub-section (1), how does Bejoy's prayer for restitution of conjugal rights stand no matter what the plea of Aloka? Upon the whole of the evidence reviewed above and, in particular, in view of the calumny against Aloka given vent to by Bejoy in one letter after another calling upon her to have a divorce forthwith, and mentally torturing her with the mention of a wife to come, it is impossible to say that Aloka has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from his society. So the first requirement of Section 9, sub-section (1) fails Bejoy. ( 29 ) SO does the second requirement. It is false, and false to the knowledge of Bejoy, to say, as he does in the fourth paragraph of his petition, that Aloka left the matrimonial home towards the first week of May, 1958, the truth being that he himself reached her to her mother's place for confinement. That is not leaving the matrimonial home with the intention of deserting Bejoy. That is not leaving the matrimonial home with the intention of deserting Bejoy. Worse, we see suppression of truth in his petition is that he utters not a word there about the true state of affairs, just the opposite of the astounding allegations - and false allegations - he makes against his wife and his people in the letters we have reviewed. The Court is not satisfied about the truth of his statements in the petition. The Court is satisfied the other way about : about their falsity. ( 30 ) THE third requirement of a legal impediment does not, therefore, fall to be considered. ( 31 ) SO viewed as well, Bejoy cannot succeed. First and last, the Court cannot bring itself, in the exercise of its discretion, to grant the discretionary relief of restitution of conjugal rights Bejoy prays the Court for. ( 32 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, save and except the amounts paid a ready as litigation costs. We assess the hearing fee as ten gold mohurs. Liberty is given to the wife respondent to apply for permanent alimony and maintenance for herself as well as the child. Datta, J. : I agree. Appeal dismissed.