Judgment M.L. Jain, J.-This is wife’s appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, and dated January 4, 1977, by which he granted a decree of divorce to her husband. 2. Respondent Kailsh Singh Parihar a pilot officer (now a Squadron Leader) son of a Judge of this Court (now Retd.) and appellant Priti a daughter of an army medical officer with the rank of Colonel (now retd-) and educated in a convent were married on May 9, 1968, in Jodhpur. Both come of the two prominent families of the Mali community. Their marriage was not even four years old before it came crashing down and the husband preferred an application on January 11, 1972, for judicial separation on the grounds of desertion and mental cruelty under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which shall hereinafter be called the Act. The Act was amended on May 24, 1972. It was later on converted into a petition for divorce on July 7, 1976. The allegations commence right from the time the bride crossed the threshold to receive her groom at the time of the “Toran” ceremony. It is complained that she had no veil on her face- since the respondent made her then cover her face, the appellant made it a point of her prestige. After the marriage, the respondent came to know that on the day of the marriage, some young man had caught her by her hands in a mournful tone that alas, she was being married, and thereupon, tears began to leave her eyes. The husband was then posted outside Jodhpur at Jorhat. After a honey-moon of three months, while he was departing to join his duties on June 3, 1968, relatives of the wife insisted that he should take her with him, but he then failed to catch the significance thereof and left her behind with his parents at their house, which he describes as his declared matrimonial home, as it was also his officially notified residence. She however went to her father’s home and it is alleged that it was there that she lived for most of the time. The husband returned in November, 1968, on leave. At that time, the wife received a letter from an army officer Capt. She however went to her father’s home and it is alleged that it was there that she lived for most of the time. The husband returned in November, 1968, on leave. At that time, the wife received a letter from an army officer Capt. David Bargouhna in which he addressed her as “Priya Bhabhiji” On enquiries being made by the husband, the wife was unable to give a satisfactory explanation. The husband then commanded her that there being no discipline in the house of her rather she must stay with his parents, though she could be permitted to visit them for a day or two. It appears that the husband then left Jodhpur. 3. On February 4, 1969, the marriage of his elder brother took place in Bombay. In that connection he came to Jodhpur and was told that she lived with her father for the entire period of December, 1968, and January, 1969. They, however, went to Bombay and returned on February 6, 1969. Then, before his departure, he happened to come by the daily personal memoirs of the wife which disclosed her mode of living, thinking, intentions, conduct and character and particularly, her fondness for one Ramesh. These memoirs further revealed that the wife did not like to live in the strict discipline of the husband’s family and was intent upon suicide. She preferred to live as a “hippy” and suffered mental agony upon her helplessness to break the social bonds. The wile had undesirable and unbecoming connection with Ramesh. She was longing to join dance parties with him. She was found frequenting restaurants, sexy English films in the company of young men and dressed like a “hippy.” She has been living with her parents since February, 1968, against his wishes. In July, 1969, the husband came again on leave for 10 days but she came to see him only for once and defying his instructions, she continued to live with her parents. In spite of this, he carried on normal correspondence so that their relations were not poisoned. This he had to because he was in active service and his letters were subjected to censor and he could not write anything to his wife about his real feelings. On October 80, 1969, a daughter was Bom to her. As desired by the husband, she was admitted in the military hospital. This he had to because he was in active service and his letters were subjected to censor and he could not write anything to his wife about his real feelings. On October 80, 1969, a daughter was Bom to her. As desired by the husband, she was admitted in the military hospital. The expenses of the delivery were deducted from his pay. From the hospital she went to her parental home again against his clear directions. 4. FromNovember 7, 1969 to February 3. 1970, he was temporarily posted in Jodhpur. A message was sent to her through her brother to come post-haste to the husband’s house but she just did not care. She did not even telephone him. When he was to proceed to his place of posting, her brother Nirmal Singh came to meet him but he misbehaved and even hollered that if his father had come to know of his narrow minded-ness, he would not have married his daughter to him. They had enough bread for their sister and she would not have to return to “susral”. 5. On May 17, 1970, the marriage of the husband’s sister took place. Wile and her family members were invited, but none came to attend the marriage. She did not even send a congratulatory message, nor did they send any “Neg” (presents) according to social customs. The wife was a student of Three Years Degree Course in the Kamla Nehru Hall, a local college for girls. After passing 1st year in 1970, she joined Biology and also appeared in Pre-medical Test which she could not clear. She applied for admission again in 1971 but she again failed in the Pre-medical Test. All this was done without the consent and knowledge of the husband. The husband alleges that these facts clearly exhibited an intention that the wife was not prepared to live and have any marital relationship with him. On September 30, 1970, the husband was posted in the Air Force Station, Jodhpur, but the wile did not care to meet him or even to ring him up, though, while going to the College she daily used to pass by his house. He also did not like to visit or to talk to her father as he had allowed her to keep contacts with Ramesh and other young friends. At the time of “Toran” his grand-aunt was pushed about. He also did not like to visit or to talk to her father as he had allowed her to keep contacts with Ramesh and other young friends. At the time of “Toran” his grand-aunt was pushed about. She even fell down but neither her father nor any members of her family begged her pardon. Her father had invited him soon after the marriage and made him booze. When he came home and got up late next morning his dad smelt liquor and was annoyed. When their daughter was born, her father did not congratulate his father. On January 31, 1970, Nirmal Singh had already misbehaved with him. When his parents went to see their daughter in the military hospital on October 31, 1969, she did not greet them then or thereafter on the occassion of any festival, nor did she call them on phone. 6. Theplea of the husband in brief was that since November 6, 1969, at any rate since November 30, 1969, the wife had physically withdrawn from the society of the husband and exhibited no intention to return to matrimonial home and discharge the marital obligations, and was thus in desertion for more than two years. 7. On May 9, 1971, he wrote a registered letter, which was replied on June 10, 1971, in which she levelled serious allegations against him. Thereupon, a photo stat copy of the extracts of her memoirs were sent to her. In reply, she stated that whatever was said about her relationship with Ramesh was trivial. The husband informed her on July 7 1971, that he was prepared to meet her in the Circuit House on August 2, 1971. The meeting did take place but did not last for more than 3 to 4 minutes without any talk contrary to her behaviour towards Ramesh which gave her great excitement. 8. When Capt. David Bargouhna was on leave, she was seen moving with him on August 15, 1971. On New Year’s eve, she was seen dancing in the army mess and had been seen in the English films, restaurants etc. in the company of unidentified young men, dressed like a “hippy”. Her diary clearly gave an indication that she had some connection with Ramesh and her conduct caused mental cruelty to the husband of such nature that to live with her was harmful and dangerous to his health and life. in the company of unidentified young men, dressed like a “hippy”. Her diary clearly gave an indication that she had some connection with Ramesh and her conduct caused mental cruelty to the husband of such nature that to live with her was harmful and dangerous to his health and life. Her diary of January 6, 1969, further showed that she could take poison which was easily available to her as her father was a doctor. The husband also apprehended that it she had done so, he could be implicated into a false case of murder. It was also likely that considering him to be an impediment in her connection with Ramesh, she could even poison him. She had levelled accusations against him and his parents, which had further hurt him. The duties of the husband were of a dangerous nature, in discharge of which it was necessary for him to possess mental peace and balance. With mental agony horn of the misconduct of his wife, he was likely to lose his balance of mind and a moment’s imbalance can involve him in a perilous air-accident He asked for a dissolution of the marriage. 9. Therespondent denied all the allegations and a detailed reply explained all the allegations levelled by the husband. I need not reproduce the reply because that is what I shall be discussing as and when relevant. 10. Thelearned District Judge, after a careful analysis of each piece of evidence led on either side found that the plea of desertion was a false plea. He also disbelieved most of the allegations regarding cruelty. He, however, held that her relationship with Ramesh and her desire to commit suicide written in the diary were two facts which establish that the husband was treated with mental cruelty, but the letters which he subsequently wrote to her from Jorhat from March 10, 1969 to October 23, 1969, showed that he had condoned the cruelty. The learned Judge then discussed certain allegations which were made by the wife after the petition was filed. The wife wrote a letter to the Air Force authorities on February 8, and July 1, 1972 in which she complained against her husband. She also threw aspersions upon the family of the father of the husband with an innuendo that they were greedy; that the husband suffered from inferiority complex and the parents of the husband were old fashioned. The wife wrote a letter to the Air Force authorities on February 8, and July 1, 1972 in which she complained against her husband. She also threw aspersions upon the family of the father of the husband with an innuendo that they were greedy; that the husband suffered from inferiority complex and the parents of the husband were old fashioned. Certain insulting questions were also put to the husband at the time of cross-examination with respect to the character of his sister. The learned Judge held that all this later conduct revived the cruelty which had been condoned. The learned Judge then felt that there was no possibility of reconciliation and the gulf between the two had widened during the last 7 years. He wished that both the parties had buried their hatchet but it was unlikely to happen. It was in the interest of either of them that they live apart in peace. He accordingly, dissolved their marriage. 11. In this appeal, the wife challenged the findings arrived at by the learned lower Court against her, while the respondent does not only support the decree but also states that the findings against him in the Court below ought to have been given in his favour and if those findings were reversed, the decree shall stand maintained. 12. The learned lower Court has rejected the contention that the wife was guilty ol desertion but the husband challenges these findings as against the record. It has, therefore, become necessary to examine as to whether the wife is in a desertion for two years more so, because this is also now a ground for divorce. In Bipin Chandra Shah vs. Prabhawati, AIR 1957 SC 176 the Supreme Court observed that the two essential couditions must be there before the spouse can be held guilty of desertion. They are; (1) the factum of separation, and (2) intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned, (1) absence of consent and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. If there has been separation, the essential question always is whether that act could be attributable to an animus deserendi. Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned, (1) absence of consent and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. If there has been separation, the essential question always is whether that act could be attributable to an animus deserendi. During, all the period that there has been a desertion, the deserted spouse must affirm the marriage and be ready and willing to resume married life on such conditions as may be reasonable. If one spouse by his words and conduct, compelled the other spouse to leave the matrimonial home, the former would be guilty of desertion though it is the latter who has physically separated from the other and has been made to leave the matrimonial home. As held in Lachman vs. Meena AIR 1964 SC 40 , in cases of desertion--the factum as well as the animus deserendi--the burden of proof is on the petitioner and he or she has to establish beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court the desertion throughout the entire period of 2 years immediately preceding the petition as well as that such desertion was without just cause. Even if the wife, where she is a deserting spouse, does not prove just cause for her living apart, the petitioner husband has still to satisir the Court that desertion was without just cause. 13. In the light of the aforesaid observation let us notice a few facts of this case. The marriage was performed on May 9, 1968. The husband went to Jorhat the place of his posting and came for 3 weeks from May 9, 1968, to June 3, 1968. He then came in November 1968 for 10 days. He came again in January, 1969, and was out to Bombay from February 2, 1969 to February 5, 1969, to attend the marriage of his brother on February 4, 1969 In July, 1969, he came for 10/15 days. A daughter was Bom to them on October 30, 1969, in the military hospital from where she was discharged on November 6, 1969. She went to her father’s house and became fit to move about after a month but remained there from November 7, 1969, onwards. The husband was posted in Jodhpur on September 30, 1970. Some letters then exchanged between the parties. She went to her father’s house and became fit to move about after a month but remained there from November 7, 1969, onwards. The husband was posted in Jodhpur on September 30, 1970. Some letters then exchanged between the parties. They agreed to meet in the Circuit House. On August 2, 1971, the meeting took place On January 11, 1972, this petition came to be filed. It was urged on behalf of the husband that though according to Hindu law, it is the duty of the wife yet since November 30, 1969, she made no efforts to come to the matrimonial home. 14. It wasfurther submitted on behalf of the husband that both houses are separated by a furlong. She had joined the college but never came to the petitioner’s house, though on her way to the college, she was daily passing by his house. In May, 1970, she was invited to the marriage of his sister, but she did not even send a congratulatory message. She twice attempted though in vain to join the medical college. In the Indo-Pak war of December, 1971, the husband was at the front, but she did not try to contact the petitioner or his parents or other relatives to enquire about his safety. 15. The contention of the wife is that, as a matter of tact, the husband after he came to be posted at Jodhpur, never wanted her to return to the matrimonial home. The husband falsely alleged that he had instructed her on 23rd October, 1969, that she should go to “Susral” from the hospital but there is nothing of the kind in his letter (Exhibit P 28). He says he had also written to his mother about this but that letter was (sic) produced, nor was the mother. The wife deposed that her mother-in-law did not ask her to come to “Susral”. The letter Exhibit 8 dated May 9, 1971, shows there was no willingness on the part of the husband to call her or receive her. This letter showed more than anything else, that the husband was building a case upon legal advice, to forsake her. By then he had determined ‘to fight only once’ but ‘to finish’. The letter Exhibit 8 dated May 9, 1971, shows there was no willingness on the part of the husband to call her or receive her. This letter showed more than anything else, that the husband was building a case upon legal advice, to forsake her. By then he had determined ‘to fight only once’ but ‘to finish’. In his cross-examination, the husband admitted that after the Indo-Pak War of 1971 he stoutly refused to take back the wife on any condition-She has been living in her ‘Susral’ from July 1989 to September 10, 1969, as the letter’s were addressed by the husband to her on that address. She has been asking Chetan, husband’s brother, about the welfare of her husband, but no reply was given to her. She used to contact his colleagues one Dipak and Sonpal and she also came to know that he was on no front duty at all. 16. The learned trial Judge has found the charge of desertion baseless. His findings are that the husband had decided before filing the petition that he was not prepared to keep his wife. In Exhibit 8, he has categorically disclosed his intention in this respect. The learned Judge observed that it appears that he was waiting for the statutory period ofjust 3 years and no more to expire and charge her with desertion, while the wife has been asserting that she was ever willing and ready to live with him. When the husband came to Jodhpur after their daughter was born, he did not even care to go and see the child and its mother, did not even care to talk to her on the phone. The learned Judge has very rightly said that this kind of indifference on the part of the husband must have saddened the wife’s heart and in these circumstances to expect her, soon after the delivery to go on her own to “Susral”, will be an unreasonable demand. To break the ice he was even invited on the eve of the Deepawali, but he declined the invitation on the pretext that he was busy in some official work, but admittedly he had gone out to see the lightings in the town. To break the ice he was even invited on the eve of the Deepawali, but he declined the invitation on the pretext that he was busy in some official work, but admittedly he had gone out to see the lightings in the town. The learned Judge also refused to draw any conclusion adverse to her from the facts that she tried to join the medical course, as that was done upon the wishes of the husband, who was dreaming that his wife were a doctor in service along with him in the Air Force. The story of the invitation to his sister’s marriage was found by the learned trial judge a concoction. If one were to believe what the husband has to (sic) this regard, even then one must not expect the wife to attend the marriage where naturally she was not welcome. No one went to invite her or her father, but the invitation was sent through a peon Han Singh. The wife maintains that when she was discharged from the hospital, she was given to understand that she should go to her father’s house and could return only when a “muhurat” was conveyed to her. At the time of the trial, the husband’s case has been that no one in his family believes in “muhurat”, but the learned trial Judge rightly tound it false, as the family brought their car by the astrologer’s time and the husband appeared in the Court wearing some auspicious thread round his wrist. As a matter of fact, the husband has alleged acts of cruelty on the part of the wife and it appears that having entertained hostile feelings against the wife, it was the husband, who chose to keep the wife separated. There is no fault on the part of the wife. The learned Judge held that it was not possible to come to the conclusion that the wife had deserted the husband but the evidence pointed to the contrary. From 7th November, 1969, onwards the conduct of the husband has been such as if the wife had little meaning for him and when she wanted to know why it was so, then in his letter Exhibit 3 he stated only trivial reasons such as, her father did not congratulate his father etc. From 7th November, 1969, onwards the conduct of the husband has been such as if the wife had little meaning for him and when she wanted to know why it was so, then in his letter Exhibit 3 he stated only trivial reasons such as, her father did not congratulate his father etc. That he sent through her brother a message to the wife to come, was also disbelieved by the learned Judge. Even when he was invited to a dinner on the Deepawali night, he avoided by saying that he was busy in official work. One Dr. Ram Swaroop Sankhla wanted to intervene. He stated in his affidavit that the wife was at all times ready and willing to go and live with her husband but she was not welcome and the husband even refused to agree to talk to her. The accusation that the intention of desertion was implicit in her attempts to join medical studies was also found untrue as the attempts of pursuit of medical studies were made with the wishes of the husband. He considered it quite normal that a wife remained away from the husband for a period of 5 months after birth of the daughter. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the husband failed to prove desertion for more than 2 years and further that during all this period the husband was ready and willing to keep the wife. 17. The learned Counsel for the wife has drawn my attention to letter (Exhibit 3) dated June 15, 1971, sent by the husband to the wife. It was urged that this letter exposed the real motive of the husband why the wife was being deserted. The pertinent passage of his letter is as follows: “On the occasion of the birth of our child the usual customary ‘Badhai’ (Messenger with auspicious news) was not sent nor did your father show the small Courtesies to congratulate my father. In these circumstances, your father being found wanting in ordinary Courtesy and customary observances there could hardly be any question of my and my parents visiting your father’s house. Please note that at no time did your father have any talk over any matter with my father after the birth of the child.” 18. Thelearned Counsel questioned what “any other matter” was there to talk about, if it was not over money matters. Please note that at no time did your father have any talk over any matter with my father after the birth of the child.” 18. Thelearned Counsel questioned what “any other matter” was there to talk about, if it was not over money matters. This has to be considered in the light of the customary tux* that they were expecting in case of his sister’s marriage. As a matter of fact, since no money was coming forward from the side of the wife’s parents, he chose to forsake the wife. The learned Counsel further stated that the greed of the husband was evidenced by a further fact that the wife had some money in a firm and the husband withdrew half of it on the ground that he had to spend on purchase of saris which he says he brought from Assam for his wife. All this criticism of the conduct of the husband is not without foundation. Be that as it may, I am left unconvinced totally that it was the wife who was in desertion. Rather it is the husband, who is guilty of that offence. There is no doubt that after the birth of the baby, the parties met once or twice only casually and thus the fact of separation is there but there is no intention on her part to bring the cohabitation permanently to an end while the conduct of the husband has been such as to give reasonable cause to the wife to believe that she was no more welcome in the husband’s house. She says she had been insulted and humiliated in the presence of her college friends in her ‘Susral’. The husband has failed to satisir that the separation was without any just cause. The wife has until today been ready and willing to live with him forgetting all what has gone by. Though in the background of her education and family she was entitled to ask for a better treatment in the house, she has put no conditions. Since no desertion has been established there was otherwise no obligation on her part to attempt to return to the matrimonial home. Since husband had made it clear that she was no more welcome or can no more be tolerated, she is excused from any attempt to terminate the desertion. Since no desertion has been established there was otherwise no obligation on her part to attempt to return to the matrimonial home. Since husband had made it clear that she was no more welcome or can no more be tolerated, she is excused from any attempt to terminate the desertion. There is no animus deserendi on her part rather there is an implied consent on the part of the husband. The conduct of the husband cannot be overlooked by quoting scriptures regarding the duties of the wife as if Hindu law lays down no duties for the husband. I am, therefore, unable to hold that the wife is in desertion much less for the statutory period of not less than two years. 19. With regard to cruelty in Smt. Priti Parihar vs. Kailash Singh 1974 WLN 397 : ( AIR 1975 Raj 52 ) Ben C. J., referring to Russell vs. Russell 1895 PD 315 said that cruelty is wilful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health bodily or mental as to give rise to reasonable apprehension of such a danger. It includes action or omission which injures the susceptibilities of the affected spouse and causes him or her mental agony which the sufferer alone can state Bucknill j. in Horton vs. Horton 1940 PD 187 at p. 193 was of the view that a man takes the woman for his wife for better, for worse. He cannot establish cruelty merely because he finds life with her is impossible. He must prove that she has committed wilful and unjustifiable act inflicting pain and misery on him and causing him injury to health. In Siddagangiah vs. Smt. Lakshamma AIR 1968 Mys 115, it was held that it is not restricted to acts of physical violence and may extend to behaviour which may cause pain and injury to the mind as well, and so renders the continuance in the matrimonial home an agonising ordeal. In Smt. Putal Devi vs. Gopi Mandal AIR 1963 Pat 93 it was observed that a husband or a wife may not prima facie do anything directly against the other and apparently there may be good relations. Nonetheless, the behaviour may be such as to cause an extreme mental distress and consequent detriment to health. In Smt. Putal Devi vs. Gopi Mandal AIR 1963 Pat 93 it was observed that a husband or a wife may not prima facie do anything directly against the other and apparently there may be good relations. Nonetheless, the behaviour may be such as to cause an extreme mental distress and consequent detriment to health. What acts will constitute mental agony will obviously depend upon the circumstances of each case. Several factors will have to be taken into account, such as, environment, status in society, education, cultural development, local custom, social condition, physical and mental condition of the parlies etc. In Dastane vs. Dastane AIR 1975 SC 1534 a decision handed down before the Act was amended in 1976, the Supreme Court held that the Court has to deal not with an ideal husband and an ideal wif’ (assuming any such exist) but with the particular man and woman before it. The threat by the wife to her husband that she will put an end to her own life or that she will set the house on tire, the threat that she will make him lose his job and have the matter published in news papers and the persistent abuses and insults hurdled at the husband and his parents were held all of so grave an order as to imperil the husband’s sense of personal safely, mental happiness, job satisfaction and reputation, As regards condonation, the Supreme Court observed that condonation within Section 23 (1) (b) means forgiveness of the matrimonial offence and the restoration of offending spouse to the same position as he or she occupied before the offence was committed. As to revival in that case, the wife had written a letter to the Government of India asking it to provide separate maintenance for her self and the children. The husband was an employee at the Pusa Hospital, Delhi. She alleged that during the period that she lived with the appellant, she was subjected to great harassment and mental and physical cruelty. The parents of the appellant were wicked persons and much of her suffering was due to the influence which they had on the appellant. They planned to get her examined by experts in the mental hospital with insincere, wicked and evil motive. The parents of the appellant were wicked persons and much of her suffering was due to the influence which they had on the appellant. They planned to get her examined by experts in the mental hospital with insincere, wicked and evil motive. On her refusal to submit to the medical examination, she was driven out of the house with the children after being deprived of the valuables on her person and in her possession. This letter was considered to constitute cruelty, but the Supreme Court proceeded to examine the back ground in which the letter was written. It came to the conclusion that the appellant had worked himself as to believe that the respondent had gone off her mind, he lodged a complaint to the police that she needed treatment from a psychiatrist, he wrote her a letter that she was in unsound state of mind and that he will not be liable for any expenses incurred by her during her stay in her parents’ house, he wrote a letter to the Director Social Welfare that the respondent was a lunatic before her marriage, all this showed that the husband was preparing ground for a decree of divorce or for annulment of marriage. He was anxious to disseminate the information as widely as possible that the respondent was of an unsound mind. Yet she expressed her willingness to go to her husband as desired by him. It is in this background that the respondent wrote the offending letter to the Government. The allegations were provoked by the husband by his persistent and purposeful accusation, repeated times without number, that the respondent was of unsound mind. It is true that the more serious the original offence, the less grave need be the subsequent acts to constitute a revival, and in cases of cruelty, very slight fresh evidence is needed to show a resumption at the cruelty. The wife ought not to have described the husband’s parents as wicked but upon this solitary circumstance there was no revival o& condoned cruelty. As respects the burden of proof , the Court stated the rule that it is not the requirement of the law that petitioner must prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Proceedings under the Act being essentially of a civil nature, the word ‘satisfied’ in Section 28 must mean satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities and not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. Proceedings under the Act being essentially of a civil nature, the word ‘satisfied’ in Section 28 must mean satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities and not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. 20. Let us now examine our case in this light. The circumstances which are alleged to have caused mental cruelty to the husband in this case are said to be the following:-1 On the eve of marriage an unidentified friend had caught her hand and bemoaned that she was being married. 2) She had appeared without a veil at the Toran ceremony and his grand aunt was pushed about at the marriage ceremony without an apology. 3) The diary contained references to one Ramesh. It is alleged that in the diary, she has mentioned of him as a nice guy. In cross-examination, she said that by “nice guy” she meant friendly, while the impression of the husband is that the wife was living a romantic lite with him. Ramesh admitted that it may be that she may have been impressed by him. The wife said that she used to tie ‘Rakhi’ to Ramesh, but Ramesh denied this. It was urged that ‘nice guy’ means ‘Chhela’ and that showed that wife was fond oE a person like ‘Chhela’. That she wanted to go to a dance with him and she did actually go jumping and dancing with him in Mandore in the company of his family. That shows that she wanted to main- tam her relationship with him even after the marriage. 4) Her connection with David Bargouhna, an Army Captain which is based upon a letter, which he addressed to her calling her “Bhabhiji”. She was also seen with him in Nehru Park on 15th August, 1971. The letter has not been produced. 5) She, in her diary, stated that she was so much afflicted and has been insulted in the ‘Su