Short Note : 1. What has been said by the petitioner is that he had come to know about the respondent's pregnancy before she left his house. According to him this pregnancy was from some one else from before her marriage with him. No Inference about this examination by a lady doctor and her opinion that respondent had three months pregnancy is to be found in the earlier letters written by him. That lady doctor has not even been examined. It is admitted by the parties that their marriage took place on 30-6-1971 and a child was born to the respondent on 8-2-1972. In view of this period and there being no other evidence it cannot be said that the child was not from the petitioner. No doubt the position and the circumstances under which the respondent left the appellant's house are not very clear from the evidence. The respondent, in the opinion of this Court, is entitled to succeed on the ground that before the end of the statutory period of two years the appellant made wild and reckless allegations of unchastity against the respondent. These allegations of unchastity were made not only in the notice but also in the publication in the newspaper. It also has come in the evidence that the petitioner's father had filed some case against the respondent in the Court of judicial magistrate. Not only this the offer on the part of the respondent to return petitioner's house was even rejected by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, in the circumstances this provides a just cause for the respondent for not resuming cohabitation That being the position, the petitioner would not be entitled to relief judicial separation. Laxman Uttanehand Kripalani v. Meena alias Mota AIR 1964 SC 40 . Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavati. AIR 1970 SC 176 relied on. Appeal dismissed.