MAHINDER NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) IRIS Clare Helms, a Christian lady, and Dr. Autar Singh Paintal, a Sikh gentleman, appeared before the Registrar of Marriages appointed under Act No. 3 of 1872 for the District of Dehradun, on 5th Dec. , 1949, and, having made, in the presence of the said Registrar of Marriages and in the presence of three credible witnesses, declarations required by Act No. 3 of 1872, got married to each other. The Registrar s certificate of marriage was issued as evidence of that marriage on 5th Dec. , 1949. ( 2 ) AFTER the marriage was thus performed under the Special Marriage Act, 1872 (Act No. 3 of 1872), the two parties to the marriage lived and co-habited with each other at a number of places, inter alia, at Lucknow and at Delhi. Three children were born to the parties, Anita on 3rd Feb. , 1953; Priti on 4th Feb. , 1960; and Gautam on 22nd Sept. , 1961. ( 3 ) ON 17th Mar. , 1980 about 30 years after the parties were married, the husband Dr. Autar Singh Paintal filed a petition for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 under S. 27 (b) and 27 (d) of the said Act. Section 51 (1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 repealed the Special Marriage Act, 1872 and S. 51 (2) created a legal fiction whereby all marriages duly solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1872 were deemed to have been solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. ( 4 ) AT the time of the filing of the petition, the husband was living at 73, Ring Road Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and the wife was living at the Director s bunglow, Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi University, Delhi. Dr. Autar Singh Paintal at the time of institution of the proceedings was the Director of the Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute. ( 5 ) SECTIONS 27 (1) (b) and (d) which are relevant to this appeal, read as under : "27 (1 ). Dr. Autar Singh Paintal at the time of institution of the proceedings was the Director of the Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute. ( 5 ) SECTIONS 27 (1) (b) and (d) which are relevant to this appeal, read as under : "27 (1 ). Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district Court either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent XX XX XX XX XX (b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; xx xx xx xx xx (d) has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty. " ( 6 ) THE Additional District Judge who tried the divorce petition filed by the petitioner- husband as matrimonial Suit No. 454 of 1980, dismissed the same by his judgment dt. 31st Oct. , 1983. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Additional District Judge in matrimonial Suit No. 454 of 1980, the husband preferred a First Appeal from the Order, No. 306 of 1983. The said appeal was heard by an Hon ble Single Judge of this Court, who allowed the appeal and granted decree of divorce, prayed for by the petitioning husband, by his judgment and decree dt. 9th May, 1985 (reported in AIR 1986 Delhi" 60 ). . ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the Hon ble Single Judge of this Court, the wife has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. ( 9 ) THE petition for divorce filed by Dr. Autar Singh Paintal on 17th Mar. , 1980, numbering 357 of 1980, was allowed to be amended during the course of the proceedings. This amended petition has been renumbered as 454 of 1983, to which reference is made hereafter. ( 10 ) IN his petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, mentioned above, the respondent had stated that the parties had lived as husband and wife at Mull Building, Outram Road, Lucknow (U. P), and lived and cohabited at various places. The respondent husband stated that at the time of presentation of the petition, the wife was residing at Director s Bungalow, Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi University, Delhi, whereas the respondent was residing with his brother at73, Ring Road (Lajpat Nagar), New Delhi. The respondent husband stated that at the time of presentation of the petition, the wife was residing at Director s Bungalow, Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute, Delhi University, Delhi, whereas the respondent was residing with his brother at73, Ring Road (Lajpat Nagar), New Delhi. ( 11 ) THE respondent husband mentioned about three children, being born to the parties, and that the relationship between the parties were quite peaceful and cordial till March, 1964, and the differences that existed, were minor, and not of much importance. ( 12 ) THE respondent husband stated that he held the degrees of M. D. , Ph. D. , D. Sc. , F. R. S. E. , F. A. M. S. and F. M. A. ( 13 ) IT may be stated here that the appellant Wife also is a qualified person. She has a degree of B. A. , Diploma in Education from Edinbourgh University and holds a degree of Master of Education from the University of Delhi, as also Ph. D. degree in Education from the University of Delhi. The appellant had also stated in her testimony that she was a permanent lecturer in Lady Irwin College since the last 17 years, and that she joined the Lady Irwin College on 1st Sept. , 1964. The husband asserted that he is highly qualified, renowned research scholar and one of the top-most scientists in the country, and that he was appointed as Director of the Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute in the year 1964. The respondent husband also asserted that among other things, he had to conduct and carry out research, and also conduct, the courses, such as M. D. , M. Sc. , D. T. C. D. and Ph. D. etc. ; that in view of the nature of the work, being supervisory and administrative, and the fact that he had to guide the academic staff engaged at the Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute, and as he was involved in his own research and experiments in a specially maintained laboratory exclusively for him, known as Director s Laboratory, he has to be assisted by members of the academic staff of the Institute; and that being Director of the said Institute, and being one of the top-most scientists of India, he is generally invited by foreign institutes to deliver lectures, read. papers and given consultations pertaining to progress made in the field of his profession, and, therefore, visits foreign countries for these purposes off and on. The respondent asserted that owing to the nature of work, he was engaged in, he spent most of his time in the Laboratory carrying out various experiments in connection with his research, and as he used to remain in the laboratory most of the time ever since the respondent joined as Director of the said Institute, the appellant started quarrelling, harassing, annoying and defaming the respondent in the circles of friends, relatives, society and the staff members. The appellant wrote letters to the respondent as well as to others which were defamatory and were annexed to the amended petition dt. 17th Mar. , 1980. Three letters were thus annexed to the amended petition, Ex. Public witness 1/b, Ex. Public witness. 1/c and Ex. Public witness 1/d. ( 14 ) IT was stated in the amended petition that from the beginning of Jan. , 1978 the relation between the parties became worst, and ever since they were residing separate, but under the same roof. In para 13 reference was made to a letter written by the appellant to Dr. R. C. Mehrotra, Vice-Chancellor, Delhi University. Various other acts of cruelty were alleged in the petition, and the respondent husband prayed for a decree of divorce against the appellant wife. ( 15 ) THE appellant filed her written statement on 1st Dec. , 1980. In the written statement, the factum of marriage and parties living together, and the children born to the parties, were not denied. Nor was the nature of work to be undertaken by the respondent denied. Para 7 of the written statement of the appellant wife needs to be reproduced which reads as under:. "7. Para 7 of the plaint is admitted to this extent that the nature of work makes the petitioner spend time in the laboratory for carrying on research experiments, but it is denied that it is only because of this that the petitioner remains in the laboratory most of the time. "7. Para 7 of the plaint is admitted to this extent that the nature of work makes the petitioner spend time in the laboratory for carrying on research experiments, but it is denied that it is only because of this that the petitioner remains in the laboratory most of the time. It is admitted that the petitioner has been burdened with responsibilities and he does devote time in the laboratory in research study and guidance, but it is denied that the respondent started quarrelling, harassing, annoying and defaming the petitioner in his circle of friends, relatives, society or his staff members. All these letters written are of recent origin because the affairs of the petitioner had become a source of scandal for the whole world. The respondent has always taken pleasure and felt happy about the progress and promotion of the petitioner. It is denied that the respondent ever since 1964 has not acted as a faithful wife nor tried to maintain the prestige and position of the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent has always realised the responsibilities and position of the petitioner. But it is the extramarital relationship of the petitioner which has resulted in the present situation. The respondent has always been a faithful wife to the petitioner and the allegations that the respondent never acted as a faithful wife is another illustration of mental cruelty on his part. It is submitted that the respondent as a dutiful and faithful wife appreciated the involvement of the petitioner in his work and she sacrificed her life in order to help the petitioner to achieve this position in which he is today. As regards the letters they are of recent origin, of 1978, when the petitioner started to neglect the respondent. The contents of the letters are self-explanatory. " ( 16 ) A perusal of the above para. shows that there was a specific plea in this para that the present situation between the parties is as a result of "extra marital relationship" of the respondent husband. The appellant wife did not dispute writing the letter to the Vice- | Chancellor of the Delhi University. The appellant wife asserted in the written statement that "the respondent wrote this letter which was confidential and personal, hoping that the Vice-Chancellor might be able to have the petitioner to mend his ways". The appellant wife did not dispute writing the letter to the Vice- | Chancellor of the Delhi University. The appellant wife asserted in the written statement that "the respondent wrote this letter which was confidential and personal, hoping that the Vice-Chancellor might be able to have the petitioner to mend his ways". Specific allegations of the respondent s emotional involvement with his "young assistant 28 years old Ashma Anand" were made in the additional pleas. The appellant wife stated that both the appellant and the respondent stayed in the flat of Ms. Ashma Anand at Oxford in June, 1977. The additional pleas of the written statement of the appellant wife, in fact, are nothing but assertions regarding relationship between the respondent husband and Ms. Ashma Anand. ( 17 ) THE replication was filed by the respondent husband on 6th Dec. , 1980. In the replication it was asserted that the assertions which have been made regarding the alleged relationship of the respondent husband with Ms. Ashma Anand are defamatory and false. ( 18 ) ON pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : "1. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of more than two years on the date of presentation of the petition? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged. in the petition? OPP. 3. Whether there has been any unnecessary or improper delay on the part of the petitioner in instituting the present proceedings? OPR. 4. Whether the petition is not in accordance with the Rules? If so, its effect? OPR. 5. Whether the petitioner has condoned the act of cruelty? OPR. 6. Relief. " ( 19 ) THE parties led their evidence, and Shri G. S. Dakha, Additional District Judge, vide his judgment dt. 13th Oct. , 1983 dismissed the petition for divorce, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. Before the Additional District Judge no arguments were advanced on issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5. ( 20 ) AGGRIEVED by the judgment in Hindu Marriage Act case No. 454 of 1983, the respondent husband filed F. A. O. in this Court On the appeal being allowed, the appellant wife preferred this Letters Patent Appeal No. 107 of 1985. ( 21 ) THE Hon ble Single Judge of this Court has found issue No. 1 which relates to dessertion, against the respondent. ( 21 ) THE Hon ble Single Judge of this Court has found issue No. 1 which relates to dessertion, against the respondent. Counsel for the respondent has not urged any argument against the said finding of the Hon ble Single Judge before us, and, therefore, that issue has to be taken as decided against the respondent. ( 22 ) BEFORE us, learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any argument on issues Nos. 3 and 4, issue No. 3 relating to improper delay in institution of the proceedings by the respondent, and issue No. 4 relating to the petition not being in accordance with rules. Both these issues were decided in favour of the petitioner by the learned trial Judge as well as the Hon ble Single Judge. The only arguments which have been raised before us, relate to issue No. 2, which relates to cruel conduct of the appellant vis-a-vis the respondent, and the relief which is to be ordered in these proceedings. ( 23 ) BEFORE us, learned counsel for the appellant has divided the matter of cruelty into four distinct aspects which have been dealt with by the Court below and the Hon ble Single Judge. These are : I) alleged extra-marital relations of the respondent with a person other than the respondent s wife (appellant herein) ii) alleged indifference of the appellant to the relations of the respondent, whether the same amounts to cruelty; iii) whether addressing the respondent as "sikhra" by the appellant, would amount to cruelty; and iv) whether non-attendance of the appellant to the respondent during the time of his ailment would amount to cruelty. ( 24 ) AT the beginning of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant asserted that there was no pleading by the respondent in his petition for divorce that the appellant is guilty of cruel conduct towards him by making false assertions with respect to alleged extra- marital relations of the respondent/petitioner with other woman. It was also asserted by the counsel for the appellant that it was not pleaded by the respondent/petitioner that the treatment of the appellant vis-a-vis the relations of the respondent would tentamount to cruelty. Both these contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are erroneous. It was also asserted by the counsel for the appellant that it was not pleaded by the respondent/petitioner that the treatment of the appellant vis-a-vis the relations of the respondent would tentamount to cruelty. Both these contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are erroneous. As stated above, reference has to be made to the amended petition for divorce, to which written statement was filed by the respondent (appellant herein ). In para 13 of the amended petition, there is clear assertion by the respondent that letter was written to Dr. R. C. Mehrotra, Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University, which contained false and defamatory statement regarding relationship of the respondent with Dr. Ashima Anand. This was a letter dt. 5th May, 1979, and was exhibited as Ex. Public witness. 1/f. This letter was not only written to the Vice-chancellor, Delhi University, but copies thereof were sent to Dr. R Vishwanathan, Prof. S. Chandrasekhar, Prof. K. L. Wig, Dr. B. Shankaran, Dr. (Mrs.) Bimla Chaudhary, Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Chawla and Sh. J. Veeraraghvan. Reply to this letter by the Vice-chancellor is dt. 22nd May, 1979. Letter dt. 5th May, 1979 is annexed to the amended petition for divorce as annexure VI (wrongly typed as annexure V ). Having made the letter to the Vice-Chancellor dt. 5th May, 1979, the entirety of the assertions made in this letter have to be treated as a part of the petitioner s pleadings. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondent has made no pleadings regarding cruelty of the appellant to the respondent by making false and malicious complaints to the superiors/employees/colleagues of the respondent. This letter needs to be reproduced in full for the purpose of this case, and it reads as under : "confidential and PERSONAL Director s Bungalow, Patel Chest Institute, Delhi. May 5th, 1979 The Vice-chancellor, Delhi University, Sir, This is to report officially that my husband, Dr. Autar Singh Paintal, 54 years old, Director of the Patel Chest Institute, is throwing me out of the house, which I have looked after well for 30 years and brought up his three children, because he has fallen in love with his 28 year assistant, Ashima Anand, and he wants to install her in my house in my place. Autar Singh Paintal, 54 years old, Director of the Patel Chest Institute, is throwing me out of the house, which I have looked after well for 30 years and brought up his three children, because he has fallen in love with his 28 year assistant, Ashima Anand, and he wants to install her in my house in my place. My daughter, Priti, 19 years old, has objected strongly to his taking this girl out with him instead of her mother, so he is throwing her out of the house as well. He has turned against his two other children as well, since they have also protested against his love affair and his taking this girl out with him alone in the Institute official car to the Club for swimming and dinner late at night. I could inform my University friends and seek help in medical circles to stop his scandalous affair. But I thought it best as you are head of this University and the Institute to complain to you first. The Institute employees have seen him waiting in the official car outside her flat at night and visiting her there. The whole Institute is now openly talking about his love affair with this girl young enough to be his daughter. He has thrice told me to leave the house in the presence of the children, and he is now harassing me in every way and inflicting such mental torture on me so that I leave my home in pure desperation and he can then accuse me of desertion. The last time at night he abused me and tried to break down my bedroom door so that by physical force he could turn me out of the house. I, therefore, appeal to you, Sir, to take whateveraction you can to protect me so that I am not forced to seek police protection for my safety as my husband continues to threaten me with violence. I am asking for help not only as a senior wife, but as a permanent teacher of Delhi University. In order that the reputation of this Institute is not affected further, it is necessary that this scandalous affair which has caused so much damage to the name of the Institute is terminated immediately. I am asking for help not only as a senior wife, but as a permanent teacher of Delhi University. In order that the reputation of this Institute is not affected further, it is necessary that this scandalous affair which has caused so much damage to the name of the Institute is terminated immediately. As it is, the Senior Officers of this Institute are accusing the Director of gross moral turpitude and this ludicrous behaviour of his has only made him a laughing stock in the Institute. I do hope you will be able to help in this matter and take necessary action soon, so that my home which I have build up for 30 years is not destroyed by this woman who is instigating him to throw me out, and the future prospects of my children are not ruined. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Mrs. Iris Paintal copy to: 1. Dr. R. Vishwanathan, V. P. C. I. 2. Prof. S. Chandrasekhar, V. P. C. L, 3. Prof. K. L. Wig, 4. Dr. B. Shankaran, D. G. H. S. , 5. Dr. (Mrs.) Bimla Chaudhary, 6. Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Chawla, 7. Shri J. Veeraraghvan. " ( 25 ) FROM this letter it is clear that the allegations have been made by the appellant wife that the respondent husband "has fallen in love with his 28 year assistant Dr. Ashima Anand". . . . . . . . . . and that "his children have protested against this love affair". . . . . . . . . "my husband continues to threaten me with violence", that the respondent husband is being accused of moral turpitude and this ludicrous behaviour of his has not only made him a laughing stock in the Institute. . . . . . . . "that this scandalous affair which has caused so much damage to the name of the Institute, be terminated immediately. " If any of the allegations that have been made are true, then there is no question of the appellant wife being guilty of cruelty vis-a-vis thand respondent husband. What needs to be seen is whether the appellant wife has succeeded in proving any of the assertions which have been made in this letter, widely circulated as it was, as stated above, by her testimony or testimony of her witnesses. What needs to be seen is whether the appellant wife has succeeded in proving any of the assertions which have been made in this letter, widely circulated as it was, as stated above, by her testimony or testimony of her witnesses. If the appellant wife and her witnesses failed to prove the assertions which have been made in this letter, then making such assertions which are defamatory if untrue, would amount to cruelty in law. ( 26 ) THE evidence on record in the shape of oral testimony and documents on record in the shape of letters exchanged between the appellant wife and Dr. Ashima Anand, letters exchanged between the children of the parties and Dr. Ashima Anand established, and it is common case of the parties that Dr. Ashima Anand came to live in the house which was allotted to the respondent husband as Director of the Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute. The letters aforementioned establish that there was a friendly, if not affectionate, relations hip between the family of the parties including their children on the one hand, and Dr. Ashima Anand on the other. It is also established that on one occasion when the respondent husband had fallen ill and needed to be taken care of, the appellant wife was out of India, and she wrote letter (Ex. R. W. I/p. I) to the said Dr. Ashima Anand to take care of her husband during his illness, which apparently she did. It is also established from the testimony of the appellant wife that in fact the parties hereto stayed in the flat of Dr. Ashima Anand when Dr. Ashima Anand was living in Oxford (England ). ( 27 ) APPARENTLY, as Dr. Ashima Anand was assisting the respondent husband in his research work at the Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute, and researchers have unconventional hours of working, it was found convenient by all concerned that Dr. Ashima Anand will live in the house allotted to the respondent husband as Director of the Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute. ( 28 ) WHAT is most surprising is that in spite of long stay of Dr. Ashima Anand in the house of the parties in Delhi, and the stay of the parties in the house of Dr. Ashima Anand will live in the house allotted to the respondent husband as Director of the Vithalbhai Patel Chest Institute. ( 28 ) WHAT is most surprising is that in spite of long stay of Dr. Ashima Anand in the house of the parties in Delhi, and the stay of the parties in the house of Dr. Ashima Anand at Oxford, there is not a single incident or episode deposed to by either the appellant wife or any of her witnesses who were examined in Court, which indicates existence of any intimacy between the respondent husband and Dr. Ashima Anand. It is surprising that no one has deposed that he or she had seen the respondent husband and Dr. Ashima Anand in close proximity with each other, or touching each other s hand or any part of the other s body in an intimate manner, or that the respondent husband and Dr. Ashima Anand were behind a closed door in any of the rooms of the house, or ever found in "flagrante delicto", and there is no testimony supporting the allegations of any extra marital affair. The extra marital affair essentially means two persons, one of them is married, as a matter of course, having sexual intercourse with another who is not married to him or her. There is no evidence in this case that any person had seen the respondent husband having sexual intercourse with Dr. Ashima Anand. In other words, no person has given testimony of having seen the respondent husband and Dr. Ashima Anand in "flagrante delicto". ( 29 ) IN this view of the matter, there is no other conclusion to be reached, except that the allegations of the extra marital relations between the respondent husband and Dr. Ashima Anand, the alleged scandalous affair, which have been made in the letter to the Vice-Chancellor, are fake, and that they were false to the knowledge of the appellant wife when the same were made in the letter dt. 5th May, 1979. ( 30 ) IN a number of judgments, this Court has held that making false and frivolous allegations to the employer of the other party, which are known to be false, amounts to Cruelty in law. 5th May, 1979. ( 30 ) IN a number of judgments, this Court has held that making false and frivolous allegations to the employer of the other party, which are known to be false, amounts to Cruelty in law. (See Smt. Kamini Gupta v. Mukesh Gupta (FAO (CS) 124/84) (reported in AIR 1985 Delhi 221); Shakuntala Kumari v. Om Prakash, AIR 1981 Delhi 53; Lajwanti Chandhok v. O. N. Chandhok, (1981) 2 DMC 97 : AIR 1982 Del 111 (Delhi) (M. L. Jain, L); Kiran Kapur v. Surinder Kumar, 1982 Rajdhani LR (Note) 37 at page 36 (Talwar, J.): AIR 1982 Delhi 543; Shardha Nand Sharma v. Kiran Sharma, (1985) 28 Delhi LT (SN) 32 (N. N. Goswamy, J.); Girdhari Lal v. Santosh Kumari, (1982) 1 DMC 180 (S. S. Kang,. J.) Punjab and Haryana High Court; Jorden Dienadoh v. S. S. Chopra, (1982) 1 DMC 224 : AIR 1982 Del 313 (Delhi) ). We are in agreement with all these judgments, and have no hesitation in holding that making false and frivolous accusation against the other party, to colleagues of the person against whom these allegations are made, would also amount to cruelty in law. There is no doubt in our mind that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the respondent husband has been defamed vis-a-vis his colleagues by sending copies of the letter dt. 5th May, 79. ( 31 ) TO deal with the contention of the counsel for the appellant wife that there is no pleading with regard to the ill-treatment of relatives of the respondent by the appellant, it is sufficient to refer to para 7 of the amended petition. The respondent has proved the allegations by two letters which have been exhibited as Ex. Public witness. 1/a dt. 8th April, 1964 and Ex. Public witness. 1/b dt. 10th June, 1978, as also by his oral deposition. ( 32 ) A reading of these letters indicate that the appellant wife in spite of living in the Indian Society, has attempted to have a marriage, in which the relatives of the parties have nothing to do with the married couple. 8th April, 1964 and Ex. Public witness. 1/b dt. 10th June, 1978, as also by his oral deposition. ( 32 ) A reading of these letters indicate that the appellant wife in spite of living in the Indian Society, has attempted to have a marriage, in which the relatives of the parties have nothing to do with the married couple. This was practically an impossibility, and any attempt to achieve such an objective, in the context of the Indian Society in 1952, and even at present of having nothing to do with the relatives of the husband cannot but amount to cruelty to the husband, as marriage is not merely a promise to live with one individual, but in reality, in the social circumstances prevalent in India hither to fore means coming into, and becoming a part of another family, a family other than the family of one s birth, i. e. the family of the husband. In our view, the family of both the parties to the marriage become a part and parcel of a larger brotherhood, on marriage of two persons. An attitude on the part of one of the parties to the marriage that he or she will have nothing to do with the family of the other, cannot but result in differences, major and minor. In any case, a source of great irritation to begin with, which would when continued, become cruelty within the meaning of matrimonial law, as applies in India. In fact, the Supreme Court has made similar observations in the case of Dastane v. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 , wherein the Supreme Court said that "persistent abuses and insults hurled at the husband and his parents may imperil husband s sense of personal safety and mental happiness. " It must be noted here that the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of cruelty prior to its amendment in S. 10 (l) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which had earlier required the cruelty by the respondent towards the petitioner must be such that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent. Cruelty need not be of that type any more. This is the effect of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. Cruelty need not be of that type any more. This is the effect of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. The provision for cruelty is less rigorous, and it is no longer necessary, like in the Hindu Marriage Act, under the Special Marriage Act, that a cruel conduct must be such as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious, for him to live with the respondent. ( 33 ) IN Dastane s case ( AIR 1975 SC 1534 ), calculated insults hurled on the parents was considered to be cruelty. ( 34 ) A reference to the letter Ex. Public witness 1/a dt. 8th April, 1964 written by the appellant wife to the respondent husband, substantiates a complaint of the respondent husband about the appellant s attitude towards the relatives of the respondent. In this letter the appellant wife states: "i had thought that I had made it absolutely clear to you when you came for the week end what I considered would be only solution with regard to my in-laws. I married you on the understanding that I would have nothing to do with them still on your persuagion for 14 years I have given them the benefit of doubt, but I have noticed that year by year the situation is growing progressively worse (as you yourself must realise ). Their demands on our time, hospitality and money seem to increase as the years go on. And instead of reciprocating it by kindness and love, all our efforts bring forth only schemes, plots and deceit. This mercenary attitude cannot be tolerated any longer now that every one is on their feet or at least ought to be. Everyone seems well settled except Ajit who is 31 seems to prefer to live on his brother s income than his own. . . . . . that is why the only solution is a complete severing of any connection with all of them. " ( 35 ) THE attitude of the appellant towards the relatives of the respondent husband is also clear from letter Ex. Public witness 1/j dt. 14th Mar. , 1979, written by the sister of the appellant to the respondent. This letter was written in response to the letter Ex. Public witness 1/e and some other letters of the respondent to Smt. Harinder. On 14th Mar. Public witness 1/j dt. 14th Mar. , 1979, written by the sister of the appellant to the respondent. This letter was written in response to the letter Ex. Public witness 1/e and some other letters of the respondent to Smt. Harinder. On 14th Mar. , 1979 it has been written by Smt. Harinder that : "i have been shocked and pained by your false and malicious accusations. You have not acted well in defaming and maligningmy brother. I assure you my brother is incapable of telling lies. Only cowards lie. He has been tolerant of your intolerance of all his near and dear ones and therefore how could anybody believe that he could act in the way you have described. " ( 36 ) THERE is nothing on record which will explain adoption of this kind of attitude by the appellant vis-a-vis relations of the respondent apart from the assertion by the appellant wife that it was settled between the parties before the marriage that she will have nothing to do with the relatives of the respondent husband. This is not borne out by any pre-nuptial settlement executed between the parties to the marriage. When the appellant wife adopts an attitude towards all the relations, her father-in-law, her brothers- in-law and her sisters-in-law, which indicates to them that they were not welcome in the house of the respondent husband, would amount to cruelty in law. We are, therefore, in express agreement with the Hon ble single Judge in his conclusion that such an attitude amounts to cruelty in law. ( 37 ) THE next assertion of cruelty by the appellant wife towards the respondent husband was that he was being called a "sikhra" by the appellant wife in the presence of many relations. Calling somebody a "sikh" which the respondent husband admits to have been born as, is one thing, and to call somebody who is born a "sikh", a "sikhra" is quite another. Such name calling is considered to be denegrating in this part of the country. If repeated over and over again, over a period of time such an expression used towards the husband, would, in our opinion, also amount to cruelty. ( 38 ) AS regards serving beef on the table, if other members of the family like the children did not object to it, it would not amount to cruelty. If repeated over and over again, over a period of time such an expression used towards the husband, would, in our opinion, also amount to cruelty. ( 38 ) AS regards serving beef on the table, if other members of the family like the children did not object to it, it would not amount to cruelty. Keeping in view that the respondent husband had married a Christian lady who had no objection to eating beef, their children did not have any such objection, it is not possible for us to say that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, serving of beef on the table would amount to cruelty. It should not be understood as to say that serving of beef on the table of a Hindu house-hold would not amount to cruelty, especially when objections to that effect are taken by the person affected thereby, and his objections are deliberately scoffed at, or denegrated; on proper proof of such assertion, it may be held in such a case that the guilty person is guilty of cruelty in law. ( 39 ) IT was also urged by the husband in the original petition that the fact that the appellant did not attend to him during the time when he was taken ill, also amounts to cruelty. The Hon ble single Judge has not accepted this as a ground of cruelty in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is clear from the facts and circumstances of the instant case that when the respondent was taken ill as a result of high altitude research work that was undertaken by him, the petitioner was not in India at that time. She was abroad somewhere in England. In this view of the matter, being almost 6000 miles away, it cannot be said that the appellant not attending to the respondent when he was ill, is guilty of cruelty towards him. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is at least one judgment of this Court reported as 1980 Hindu LR 534: (AIR 1980 Delhi 213) (Rajinder Singh Joon v. Smt. Tarawati), wherein the Hon ble Judge has held that not attending to spouse during the time when the spouse is sick, is cruelty on that spouse. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is at least one judgment of this Court reported as 1980 Hindu LR 534: (AIR 1980 Delhi 213) (Rajinder Singh Joon v. Smt. Tarawati), wherein the Hon ble Judge has held that not attending to spouse during the time when the spouse is sick, is cruelty on that spouse. What has been said by the Hon ble single Judge of this Court, has been said in the facts and circumstances of that case, which cannot be involved in the instant case. ( 40 ) IN view of our findings that false complaints of matrimonial misconduct were made by the appellant to the employer/colleagues of the respondent, which amounts to cruelty, are findings that the attitude adopted by the appellant vis-a-vis relations of the respondent, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, amounts to cruelty by the appellant towards the respondent. ( 41 ) IN view of our findings that the appellant has also committed cruelty on the respondent by repeatedly calling him "sikhra", we hold, as did the Hon ble single Judge of this Court, that the appellant being guilty of these cruelties to the respondent, the respondent is entitled to a decree of divorce under S. 27 (l) (b) and (l) (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. ( 42 ) WE, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. In our view, the respondent will also be entitled to costs, which we quantify in the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00.