JUDGMENT - Dr. (SMT.) PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This first appeal is filed by the appellant/original defendant/wife being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30th March, 1999 passed by the IInd Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Special Civil Suit No. 85/91/A/II whereby the suit of the plaintiff/husband/respondent herein came to be decreed and the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was ordered to be cancelled by a Decree of Divorce. 2. A few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows : The original plaintiff Aldino Santos Braganza got married with the original defendant Marle Dos Santos Braganza on 19-4-87. Out of the wedlock, one male child by name Armando was born on 16-3-1988. The plaintiff was resident of Assagao and was staying in his ancestral house, while the defendant at the time of filing of the suit was residing at Verla, Parra. The plaintiff was working abroad and was periodically coming to Goa. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant left the conjugal domicile of Assagao in the month of February, 1991 and started staying at her mother's place. On 2-4-1991, the defendant came to the house of the plaintiff to take her articles from the cupboard, of which she had key. On 5-4-1991, she again came to the house of the plaintiff at about 5.30 p.m. and went straight in the bedroom without talking to the plaintiff. The defendant opened the cupboard and started collecting her articles. The plaintiffs made inquiries as to why she had not brought their son. The defendant, on this, stated that she would never bring him home. The plaintiff then asked the defendant not to take anything. Thereafter, the defendant/wife slapped the plaintiff on his face and took away articles. In the balcony, the defendant again slapped the plaintiff for the second time, threw his glasses down on the floor and tried to kick the plaintiff, however, one Prabhakar Gad (P.W. 2) who was the servant of the plaintiff, came forward and intervened. At the relevant time, one Carmita D'Souza (not examined), Florinda D'Souza (P.W. 3) and Mr. Alex D'Souza (not examined) were present, apart from Prabhakar Gad. The case of the plaintiff, therefore, is that the defendant had ill treated the plaintiff in the past also. At the relevant time, one Carmita D'Souza (not examined), Florinda D'Souza (P.W. 3) and Mr. Alex D'Souza (not examined) were present, apart from Prabhakar Gad. The case of the plaintiff, therefore, is that the defendant had ill treated the plaintiff in the past also. The present suit came to be filed by the plaintiff on 22-4-1991 praying that a decree of divorce be granted to the plaintiff on the ground of ill-treatment given by the defendant to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint by inserting paragraphs 13-A, 13-B and 13-C, which was accordingly allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 3-7-92. The plaintiff's case is that after filing of the suit, the plaintiff received a registered A/D letter dated 7-5-1991 from the defendant through her Lawyer, in which it was stated that during the absence of the plaintiff from Goa, the mother and elder spinster sister Pramila started ill-treating the defendants ; that Pramila stopped as law as to write anonymous letters to the plaintiff by making false allegations against her, concerning her family background, mental illness, education etc. Some reference to alleged illicit relationship by the plaintiff somewhere in gulf countries also was made by the defendant in the said letter. The amendment was made in view of this letter dated 7-5-91. The contention of the plaintiff is that in view of this additional ground and also in view of the fact that the defendant had been ill-treating the husband, the marriage with the defendant be dissolved by a decree of divorce. 4. The defendant/wife filed written statement and denied all the contentions made by the plaintiff. It is denied by the defendant that she had ill- treated her husband. It is submitted by her that whenever she had gone to her mother's place, she had gone with the permission of her husband and that she had never gone to her mother's place with an intention to leave the conjugal domicile, but that she was compelled to stay at her mother's place and the plaintiff was allowing her to reside there. She also denied that she had any differences with the plaintiff. She has stated that there were differences with her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law and that her husband was totally under the control of his mother which gave rise to differences between the plaintiff and the defendant. She also denied that she had any differences with the plaintiff. She has stated that there were differences with her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law and that her husband was totally under the control of his mother which gave rise to differences between the plaintiff and the defendant. She has stated that she was always showing her willingness and was still ready to sort out the differences. She has also made reference to various attempts to reconciliation made by her, which, unfortunately, could not succeed. 5. In so far as incident of 2-4-1991 is concerned, the defendant stated in her written statement that she had gone to her conjugal house as she wanted her books and birth certificate of her son, but the defendants could not take her books, but she could take only the birth certificate of her son. The defendant has stated that the plaintiff should have come and taken the defendant and the son to the matrimonial home after his arrival from abroad, but that the plaintiff had not done so. According to the defendant, on 2-5-1991, the plaintiff put the defendant to certain conditions, on fulfilling which he was willing to take her back. According to the defendant, on the very same day, the plaintiff also asked his family friend Dr. Camila Costa in Porvorim to convey to the defendants that if she was ready to accept certain conditions then only she should come to the matrimonial house. The defendant has also stated that on 5-4-1991, she went to her conjugal house to collect some of her belongings which she used to keep in her cupboard, of which she had the key. She has stated that at that time, the plaintiff came and threatened her not to remove anything and also asked her to sign some papers in connection with transfer of car which was standing in the name of the defendant and also demanded Rs. 7,000/- from her. According to her story, she refused to sign the car papers. The plaintiff then got annoyed and started abusing the defendant with filthy language and started twisting her arm badly. He also refused to allow the defendant to take anything and put her out of the door. The defendant then called her sister Madeline Freitas, who had come along with her and who was standing at the gate. Thereafter, the defendant lodged N.C. complaint with the police. He also refused to allow the defendant to take anything and put her out of the door. The defendant then called her sister Madeline Freitas, who had come along with her and who was standing at the gate. Thereafter, the defendant lodged N.C. complaint with the police. The defendant denied the contents of para 12 of the plaint in which the slapping incident is mentioned. She has stated that she took off the glasses of the plaintiff in self defence, as she knew that the plaintiff was highly myopic. She admitted that Prabhakar Gad and Madelina were present there. She, however, denied that she was about to kick him or that she had assaulted the plaintiff as alleged by him. After the plaint came to be amended by inserting paras 13-A, 13-B and 13-C, the defendant also filed additional written statement and while making reference to the earlier incident, she stated that on 3-11-1990, the plaintiff hit the defendant and was trying to strangle her. The plaintiff even asked the defendant to go out of the house by calling her half caste and mad. The plaintiff's mother also alleged that she was having affairs with a bearded man. Due to assault, the defendant had swelling on her neck. She, therefore, herself got examined by Dr. Ena Abreau. On the night of 22-12-1990, the plaintiff and his mother pulled the defendant's hair twice. The defendant's contention is that this ill-treatment by the plaintiff, his mother and sister, was continuously going on from time to time and that the defendant was totally frustrated and was constrained to stay at her mother's place. But, inspite of this, the plaintiff had not taken any steps to take the defendant back to her conjugal domicile. She has submitted that on the contrary, efforts were made by her for reconciliation, but that it was the plaintiff who did not come forward to sort out the difference. She has stated that inspite of this, she was ready and willing to stay with the plaintiff and that no cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit for divorce as she had not ill-treated her husband. She has, therefore, prayed that the plaintiff's suit be dismissed. 6. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. She has, therefore, prayed that the plaintiff's suit be dismissed. 6. On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to get divorce on the ground of ill-treatment under Article 4(4) of Law of divorce ? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is leading adulterous life ? 3. Whether the defendant proves that she was forced to leave conjugal home due to ill-treatment given to her by the sister and mother of the plaintiff ? 7. Though, initially, above mentioned issues were framed, vide order dated 16-3-98, issues No. 2 and 3 came to be deleted and the only issue which remained to be adjudicated upon was issue No. 1. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of three plaintiff's witnesses and four defendant's witnesses, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had succeeded in proving that the defendant was ill-treating him and hence, he was entitled to divorce under Article 4(4) of the Law of Divorce as prevalent in the State of Goa. Thus, by the impugned judgment and order dated 30-3-1999, the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mapusa decreed the plaintiff's suit and dissolved the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is against this order, that the present first appeal has been filed by the appellant/wife. 8. The appellant/defendant has contended that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving ill-treatment and grave injuries and, therefore, it was erroneous on the part of the trial Court to grant decree of divorce to the plaintiff. It is also contended that the trial Court overlooked the fact that letter dated 7-5-91 was brought in only by way of amendment after the written statement was filed by the defendant. It is contended by the defendant that the said letter was not genuine and that if it was genuine, the plaintiff would have relied upon the same initially when the plaint came to be filed. It is her case that the said letter is not proved and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court based on the same is perverse. She has, therefore, prayed that the first appeal filed by her be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court dated 30-3-99 be set aside and quashed. 9. The plaintiff has examined himself, so also his servant, Prabhakar Gad and one Florinda D'Souza. She has, therefore, prayed that the first appeal filed by her be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court dated 30-3-99 be set aside and quashed. 9. The plaintiff has examined himself, so also his servant, Prabhakar Gad and one Florinda D'Souza. These two witnesses are, allegedly, the eye-witnesses to the incident that took place on 5-4-91. The factum of marriage, so also having borne a son out of the wedlock, are not denied. As far as the incident of 5-4-91 is concerned, it is stated by the plaintiff that on that day, at about 5.30 p.m., when he was working in his garden along with Prabhakar Gad (P.W. 2), the defendant came on a scooter and directly went to the bed room, without wishing him and that she had not brought their son along with her. The plaintiff followed her in the bed room and saw that she was removing some articles from the cupboard. He asked her as to why she had not brought the son. To that, the defendant replied that she would never bring the son to the house. The plaintiff stated that in that case he would not allow her to take the articles from the cupboard. The defendant then slapped him on his face. She then locked the cupboard and came out in the balcony. The plaintiff followed her in the balcony and, thereafter the defendant slapped on his face, as a result, his spectalces fell on the ground. The plaintiff further deposed that the defendant was about to kick him, when he was trying to pick up his spectacles. According to him, this incident which took place in the balcony, was witnessed by the witnesses like Prabhakar Gad (examined as P.W. 2), Miss Florinda D'Souza (examined as P.W. 3), Carmita D'Souza (not examined) and Alex (not examined). 10. The plaintiff further deposed that when he returned from gulf on 7-5-91, he received a letter written by Advocate Tito Menezes, allegedly under the instructions from the defendant. According to him, it was posted on 14-5-91. The plaintiff sent reply to the said letter on 31-5-1991, which was acknowledged by the said Mr. Tito Menezes. 11. 10. The plaintiff further deposed that when he returned from gulf on 7-5-91, he received a letter written by Advocate Tito Menezes, allegedly under the instructions from the defendant. According to him, it was posted on 14-5-91. The plaintiff sent reply to the said letter on 31-5-1991, which was acknowledged by the said Mr. Tito Menezes. 11. Prabhakar R. Gad is examined as P.W. 2, who, stated in his deposition that on 5-4-1991 at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. he was watering the plants in the garden along with the plaintiff and that the defendant came on a scooter, parked the same outside the house and straight away went inside the house. He further deposed that the plaintiff followed her in the house and thereafter, she heard some loud noise from the house. He saw the defendant coming in the balcony with a plastic bag in her hand. The plaintiff followed her. The defendant kept the plastic bag on the ground and gave a slap on the face of the plaintiff, as a result, his spectacles fell on the ground. He also deposed that the defendant attempted to kick the plaintiff and at that time he went and caught hold of her and brought her back. She thereafter went away talking loudly. At that time, Carmita, Florinda and Alex were present along with the mother of the plaintiff. He stated that he did not know anything about any such incident which had taken place earlier to the incident which took place on 5-4-1991. He further stated that he could only depose about the incident of that day and that he saw giving of slap by the defendant on the plaintiff from a distance of about 30 meters. He also reiterated in his cross-examination that immediately after the spectacles fell down on the ground, the defendant attempted to kick the plaintiff. He deposed that he did not know as to what was in the plastic bag and that the plaintiff also did not tell him as to what was in the plastic bag. He stated that he did not see the plaintiff snatching the plastic bag from the hands of the defendant. 12. The plaintiff examined one Florinda D'Souza as P.W. 3. She stated that she was plaintiff's neighbour and knew the plaintiff even prior to his marriage. He stated that he did not see the plaintiff snatching the plastic bag from the hands of the defendant. 12. The plaintiff examined one Florinda D'Souza as P.W. 3. She stated that she was plaintiff's neighbour and knew the plaintiff even prior to his marriage. She stated that on 5-4-1991 at about 4.30 p.m. she had gone to the house of the plaintiff to meet his mother who was sick. She stated that when she was sitting in the house, her brother Alex Caitan and sister Alvita came in the house. The mother of the plaintiff offered tea. At that time, the defendant came there, followed by the plaintiff and both of them went in the room. After sometime, the defendant came out with a plastic bag. She was going out of the house. When she reached at the verandah, she kept the bag and gave a slap on the face of the plaintiff, as a result, the spectacles of the plaintiff fell down on the ground. When the plaintiff was picking up, the defendant was about to give kick on the plaintiff. But Prabhakar Gad (P.W. 2) came and separated both of them. Thereafter, the defendant went away with the said bag. 13. In cross-examination, P.W. 3 stated that on the day of the incident, she had gone to the house of the plaintiff for the first time to inquire about the health of the plaintiff's mother and that her brother and sister came there after about 15 minutes. She further stated that she was not called by the plaintiff or his mother, but that she had gone on her own. She could not depose as to whether the plaintiff could not see without spectacles. 14. The defendant examined herself as D.W. 1 and stated that the plaintiff was working on a rig, in Abu Dhabi for 4 weeks and used to come to Goa for four weeks when he was off the service. She stated that in the month of February, 1991, she had gone to her mother's house with the consent of her husband. She also stated that she had told her husband that she would be going to her mother's place, as she could not bear the harassment given to her by their servant Rosa. Thereupon, her husband told her that she could go and stay with her mother in his absence. She also stated that she had told her husband that she would be going to her mother's place, as she could not bear the harassment given to her by their servant Rosa. Thereupon, her husband told her that she could go and stay with her mother in his absence. She also took her son with her. She further deposed that the mother-in-law was always asking her to get out of the house saying that she was mad and that she was half caste. She further deposed that her sister-in-law had gone to the extent of writing anonymous letters to her husband and that she was writing that the defendant was mad, ugly, no brains and out of caste. She further deposed that one such inland letter was dated 5-3-89 which did not bear any postal mark and that when she had sent the said letter along with other writings of her to the handwriting Expert by name Mahesh Wagh at Bombay, he gave his opinion on the same. According to the defendant, the servant who was working in the house of her husband for about 12 years, was harassing her, that she was picking up quarrels with her under the instigation of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. 15. The defendant further deposed that on 3-11-1990, the plaintiff tried to strangle her with his hand and hit on her head with his hand. Then her mother-in-law came and asked her to get out of the house. Both, her husband and the mother-in-law then started abusing her calling her half caste and that she was having affairs with bearded men. She stated that due to strangulation, she sustained injury on her arms and head and on the same day, she went to their family friend Dr. Ena Abreu (examined as DW. 2). On the following day also, she went to the said family Doctor, who prescribed Brufen and salt water formentation. The said prescription was in writing. The defendant further deposed that on 22-12-1990 also her husband hit her on the head by hand on the issue whether she had called him "a mechanic". Her mother-in-law caught hold of her hairs and pushed her to the bed. The defendant some how escaped and gave call to her neighbours who were nuns. On hearing the defendant, the said nuns took her to their house. Her mother-in-law caught hold of her hairs and pushed her to the bed. The defendant some how escaped and gave call to her neighbours who were nuns. On hearing the defendant, the said nuns took her to their house. She went to their house without slippers and the nun gave her slippers. She deposed that she was taken to the house of uncle Olave Fernandes (examined as DW. 3), who was staying nearby the house of the plaintiff, by those nuns. Thereafter, the said uncle, nuns and the defendant went to their family friend Tony and that the wife of said Tony went and brought the rector of the Palotine of Fr. Jose. All this happened on 22-12-1990 at night time. They all went together plaintiff's house. The defendant's uncle Olave (DW 3) asked the plaintiff as to what was going on in the house and the husband of the defendant's uncle Olave (DW. 3) asked the plaintiff as to what was going on in the house and the husband of the defendant replied that there was trouble going on in the house from the day one. The nuns, uncle of the defendant and the friend Tony with his wife, who were all there tried to settle the matter, but it was all in vain. 16. The defendant further stated that on 2-4-91, when she was residing at her mother's place and as she was in need of some books and birth certificate of her son, she went on her bike to her husband's house. She saw that her husband was at the back of the house. She followed him and told him that she wanted some books and the certificate. They both then came together in the house and entered their room. She questioned him as to whether she wanted her back or not. He replied that he would put some conditions. The defendant replied that she was ready to come back with the child. The husband put condition No. 1 that the defendant should be prepared to obey the terms and conditions that he would putforth, that she should listen to whatever he should say, that the defendant should sell her scooter, that the defendant should cut her relationship with their family namely Dr. Ena Olavo and others, Mr. Tony D'Souza and his family, her uncle and his family. Ena Olavo and others, Mr. Tony D'Souza and his family, her uncle and his family. The defendant deposed that the plaintiff stated to her that if she did not agree with the terms and conditions, then she should get out of the house. The defendant told her husband that she would reply within two days. She could not get the books which she wanted and that she could collect only her son's birth certificate. She, therefore, returned to her mother's house. This was in the morning hours. On the same day, the plaintiff approached Dr. Costa who was their family friend, telling her to convey to the defendant the conditions put by him and asking the defendant to obey all these conditions. The conditions were as follows: (1) the defendant should be obedient to her mother-in-law; (2) the defendant should cut relationship with Ena Abreu and family, Mr. Tony D'Souza and his family and Mr. Olavo and his family; (3) that her husband was not prepared to stay separately nor he was prepared to accept the suggestions from her. 17. The defendant further deposed than prior to this, she had arranged a meeting along with the Lawyer of the plaintiff and the plaintiff. It was suggested that she could not bear the harassment meted out to her at the hands of the in-laws, and that she should stay separately. The plaintiff was not ready to stay separately and was determined to seek divorce. The defendant stated that for this settlement, Advocate Shri P.K. Patkar and Advocate Shri A.V. Salatry were present. She stated that she was not present, but, that the said conditions were conveyed to her by Dr. Costa, when she had gone to her house on 4th with her uncle to see if there was possibility of reconciliation. She deposed that Dr. Costa told her that the plaintiff was adamant and was not ready for any settlement and that the defendant should not waste any time. 18. As far as the incident of 5-4-91 is concerned, the defendant deposed that she went to the plaintiff's Assagao residence to collect her day today articles, especially her son's things. Her sister was accompanying her, but she did not enter the gate. She kept her at the gate. The defendant went inside the house and the room. She had the key of the cupboard. Her sister was accompanying her, but she did not enter the gate. She kept her at the gate. The defendant went inside the house and the room. She had the key of the cupboard. She opened the cupboard and took out the required articles. At that time, the plaintiff came and told her that the defendant should not take away anything out of the house. He told her that she should sign the car papers. The defendant stated that the Fiat car was in her name and it was operated by the plaintiff. He also told the defendant that she should give him Rs. 7,000/- which she had out of the sale of his Camera. It is explained by the defendant in her deposition that the plaintiff had asked her to sell the camera. She further deposed that when she told him that she would not sign the car papers, he got angry and started twisting both her arms. He closed the cupboard and whatever things she had taken out from the cupboard, the plaintiff threw them in the adjoining room. He then locked the room where the cupboard was. He thereafter, started pushing the defendant out of the house. At the main door, when the plaintiff was trying to assault the defendant, she took off his glasses. She deposed that she did so, because the plaintiff could not see without glasses. She also called her sister Madeline who came running. According to the defendant, the scene was witnessed by Prabhakar Gad and her sister Madeline. The defendant received injury on her hand. She was crying. She then lodged a complaint at the Police Station. 19. The defendant further deposed that she made several attempt for reconciliation from 1990 onwards. She stated that one Silvia Albuquerque who was her cousin and one cousin of the plaintiff also made attempts for reconciliation. However, the plaintiff was not prepared to accept whatever was told on her behalf. One Fr. Imidio Pinto also made attempts for reconciliation, who was a marriage counsellor, however, the plaintiff walked out of his office. The defendant further deposed that she also sent three priests to the house of the plaintiff for reconciliation, as child was involved. She stated that her child was suffering every day on account of the problems. One counsellor from Kerala also made attempts for reconciliation, but without any success. The defendant further deposed that she also sent three priests to the house of the plaintiff for reconciliation, as child was involved. She stated that her child was suffering every day on account of the problems. One counsellor from Kerala also made attempts for reconciliation, but without any success. She also stated to the Court that she personally went to the plaintiff and asked for pardon on two occasions. She deposed that her mother-in-law was harassing her for dowry and questioning her as to how many lakhs she had brought. 20. In the cross-examination also the defendant has reiterated the several attempts which were made at her behest to bring about the reconciliation with the husband. As far as not taking the son on 2nd April to the plaintiff's house, she stated that she did not bring her son because he was too small to be carried on a scooter and that she used to bring the child to the plaintiff's house when she used to come by car. She stated that she wanted birth certificate of the child because she wanted to admit the child in the nursery school at Holi Cross, Khorlim, Mapusa. She denied that she was about to kick the plaintiff as told by Prabhakar Gad and by the plaintiff himself. She also stated that the plaintiff was about 13 years older than her and that she had feeling that the plaintiff had cheated her and her family by suppressing his correct age. She stated that the terms of the marriage were finally settled before the marriage, peacefully, though the plaintiff's mother had raised the question of dowry. She reiterated once again all the statements made by her in her examination-in-chief. 21. Dr. Leena Maria Abreu, examined by the defendant as DW. 2, stated in her deposition that she knew both the parties; that she had family relations with them and that the plaintiff's maternal grand father and her father were good friends and the plaintiff's maternal grand mother and her mother-in-law were good friends. She also stated that she knew the plaintiff since his childhood. She also supported the defendant's case about the attempts of reconciliation made by the defendant. She also stated that on 3rd November, at about 11.30 a.m. the defendant came to her, clothes and hairs dishevelled and that she was crying at that time. She also stated that she knew the plaintiff since his childhood. She also supported the defendant's case about the attempts of reconciliation made by the defendant. She also stated that on 3rd November, at about 11.30 a.m. the defendant came to her, clothes and hairs dishevelled and that she was crying at that time. She stated that the defendant told her that the plaintiff had beaten her. She and her husband took her to the cousin Olav. On 4th November, the defendant came to her place again at about 5.00 p.m. complaining of pains. Upon examination, Dr. Abreu found that there were some marks on the arms. She then prescribed the medicine Brufen as anti-inflamatory and pain killer and salt water formentation. She also stated that the defendant told her that the plaintiff wanted her not to contact Dr. Abreu (DW. 2) and her husband again. 22. D.W. 3 one Olave de Graca Braganza, the uncle of the defendant corroborated the incident of 3-11-90, which the defendant as well as DW. 2 have narrated. He also deposed about the second incident of 22-12-90 when the defendant had come along with three nuns at about 10.30 p.m. in an upset condition and that the nuns told her to comb hairs as they were shabby. He also stated that the nuns told him that the defendant was running for her life, escaping from the clutches of her husband and in-laws through the back door and knocked the door of the Palotian sisters who brought her to him at her request. The defendant told him that she was pinned down to the bed and was assaulted by the plaintiff, his mother and the sister and that the defendant requested him to come to her help. DW. 3 then went to the plaintiff's neighbour Tony D'Souza and his wife and asked him to call the rector of the Palotian's house who knew the defendant. All of them including the defendant then went to the plaintiff's house. When DW. 3 inquired with the plaintiff, he told him that the problem had started on the fourth day of their marriage. He also told him that the problem had started earlier on an anonymous letter addressed to the plaintiff which was certified by Mahesh Wagh, Handwriting Expert, as allegedly written by the plaintiff's unmarried sister Pramila. When DW. 3 inquired with the plaintiff, he told him that the problem had started on the fourth day of their marriage. He also told him that the problem had started earlier on an anonymous letter addressed to the plaintiff which was certified by Mahesh Wagh, Handwriting Expert, as allegedly written by the plaintiff's unmarried sister Pramila. At that time, Pramila stated that they were trying to prevent the plaintiff from beating the defendant. When the plaintiff was asked by DW. 3 and other people who were accompanying her whether he was any time beating the defendant, the plaintiff remained silent. He also asked the plaintiff as to who was the bearded man with whom, according to them, the defendant was having affairs, but that the plaintiff, his mother and sister feigned ignorance about the topic. 23. In cross-examination, DW. 3 admitted that he was not having very cordial relations with the plaintiff after the incidents which were narrated by him in his examination-in-chief. 24. One Angela D'Souza was examined as DW. 4 who stated that he knew the plaintiff much more than the defendant because when the plaintiff's father was sick, he had stayed with him in the hospital, as they were thick friends. DW. 4 also reiterated the attempts made by the defendant to bring about the reconciliation between the defendant and her husband. She mentioned about the intervention of the priests. She also stated that the defendant had stated her that she wanted to say separately, but the mother-in-law disagreed with it and did not want the plaintiff to stay separately. She stated that all of them had gone to the plaintiff's house for the purpose of settlement and that the plaintiff at that time had admitted that he had hit the defendant on that day. 25. In cross-examination DW. 4 stated that her relations with the plaintiff 's family were not good, but that it was only because of the incidents which she had narrated in her examination-in-chief and because she along with her friends had gone to the plaintiff's place for settlement. 26. 25. In cross-examination DW. 4 stated that her relations with the plaintiff 's family were not good, but that it was only because of the incidents which she had narrated in her examination-in-chief and because she along with her friends had gone to the plaintiff's place for settlement. 26. This is the evidence led before the Court by both the parties, on which the trial Court was called upon to adjudicate as to whether the plaintiff could prove the ill-treatment allegedly given by the defendant to him and whether he was entitled to get the divorce on the ground of ill-treatment under Article 4(4) of the Law of Divorce. The learned trial Judge answered, this issue in the affirmative. However, after going through the entire evidence, in my opinion, the learned trial Judge has committed error in giving a finding in favour of the plaintiff. 27. Advocate Shri Usgaonkar appearing for the plaintiff submitted that it is not that the ill-treatment has to be a continuous course of conduct, but that even one instance of ill-treatment is sufficient to come to the conclusion and term the said instance as the one which can provide foundation for a decree of divorce. To substantiate his proposition, he relied upon (Lalloo v. Smt. Bachi)1, A.I.R. 1986 Rajasthan 49. In this case, the wife Bachi filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty of the husband. This was contested by the husband Lalloo. The trial Court came to the conclusion on the appreciation of the evidence of both the parties that the desertion was not proved, but that the cruelty was proved. The incident, in question, allegedly took place at the bus stand where the wife Bachi was selling vegetables along with her mother. At that time, the husband Lalloo came there and gave beating to the wife. When the maternal uncle and one Kanhaiyalal tried to rescue her, they were also beaten. One Mohd. Abid also gave evidence in support of the wife Bachi, who stated that the husband started beating the wife Bachi and dragged her. When he and the mother of Bachi tried to intervene, they were also beaten. Kanhaiyalal, another eye- witness Bhanwaralal and Merilal (father of Bachi) also supported totally the case of Bachi. One Mohd. Abid also gave evidence in support of the wife Bachi, who stated that the husband started beating the wife Bachi and dragged her. When he and the mother of Bachi tried to intervene, they were also beaten. Kanhaiyalal, another eye- witness Bhanwaralal and Merilal (father of Bachi) also supported totally the case of Bachi. Thus, it was proved that Bachi was physically beaten at the bus stand and whosoever tried to rescue Bachi, were also beaten by Lalloo and his party. Kanhaiyalal's medical report showed that he was bleeding from head and right hand and the fingers were also blood stained. Bhanwarlal also had injuries near his left eye and left hand and knee. Bachi herself had injuries on her person and was complaining of injuries and pain on the backside and front side of the chest. Her right hand was blood stained. All these persons were sent for medical examination and the medical report was conclusively proved. It was on the evidence that the learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court came to the conclusion that the cruelty of the husband against the wife was well proved and established. He observed as follows : "It is not necessary for proving the cruelty that there must be many incidents of beatings. The beating by the husband to his wife in this age cannot be undermined and ignored. A wife is not a 'chattel' to be beaten at the whim and caprice of the husband. I am convinced that the decree of divorce passed by the trial Court on the basis of finding of the cruelty suffers from no infirmity". 28. Thus, observing this, the learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband. 29. I fail to understand as to how this case supports the contention of the plaintiff. In the present case, even assuming that the incident of slapping by the defendant/wife on the plaintiff, is proved, it cannot be called as so humiliating, so discrediting and so shameful or causing, such mental agony that it should be treated as a ground for dissolution of the marriage between the parties, branding that sole incident as "ill-treatment". In fact, the incident itself as narrated by the plaintiff, appears to be of doubtful nature. In fact, the incident itself as narrated by the plaintiff, appears to be of doubtful nature. Needless to say that no medical certificate showing any injury on the person was tendered by the husband, as was the case in the Rajasthan High Court Judgment (supra) cited by Mr. Usgaonkar. Thus, there was neither any injury, nor any humiliation, as was the case in Lalloo v. Bachi (supra). 30. After going through the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, it appears that the incidents as narrated by the defendant, appear to be the true versions and not the incident as narrated by the plaintiff. It appears that it was the plaintiff who caught hold of the defendant when she had come there to collect the birth certificate and other articles of day today use and accosted her. The defendant admits the taking of the spectacles of the plaintiff. The explanation given by her for doing this action is that she wanted to save herself from her husband at that time. The defendant's narration in her deposition appears to be very honest, consisting and sincere. The repeated attempts made by her for reconciliation, have been authentically corroborated by the other witnesses. D.W. 3 is the uncle of the defendant, no doubt, but there is no reason to discard his evidence on this point solely on this ground. The other witness are not only independent witnesses, but are the persons who are more friendly with the plaintiff and his family. It is pertinent to note that all the defendant's witnesses have reiterated very categorically what they have stated in their examination-in-chief and their evidence is not at all shaken on that point in the cross-examination. 31. The evidence of P.W. 2, Prabhakar Gad has to be weighed very cautiously and with circumspection. He is the plaintiff's servant and, therefore, not much reliance can be placed on his evidence. So also the plaintiff's evidence appears to be not a sincere narration, but smacks of a cooked up story. The defendant's story, on the other hand, as already observed, appears to be a very honest narration of the incident. No doubt, the relationship between the husband and the wife appears to be strained one. But the persons responsible for bringing about situation to such a pass, appear to be the mother-in-law and the spinster sister-in-law, Pramila. The defendant's story, on the other hand, as already observed, appears to be a very honest narration of the incident. No doubt, the relationship between the husband and the wife appears to be strained one. But the persons responsible for bringing about situation to such a pass, appear to be the mother-in-law and the spinster sister-in-law, Pramila. It is not uncommon to see the tense atmosphere and strained relationship between the spouses, mother-in-law and sister-in-law when there is a spinster sister-in-law in the household. One anonymous letter is addressed to the husband. The wife suspected that it was written by her spinster sister-in-law. She sent it to the handwriting expert along with the sister-in-law's admitted hand writing. The handwriting expert gave his opinion which strengthened the suspicion of the wife that it was written by her spinster sister-in-law only. The letter and the contents are, of course, not admissible in evidence because the handwriting expert has not been examined by the defendants. However, in her substantive evidence before the Court, what the defendant had stated about the sister-in-law and the mother-in-law, appears to be a true version of situation in the house hold. The defendant wanted to stay separately, as, according to her story, the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law were harassing her. She wanted a separated house hold. The plaintiff was being prevented by the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law to stay separately. Under these circumstances, if she stayed with her mother, then it cannot be said that she did something which was totally unjustifiable. She has stated that she had no problem as such with the husband himself, while the problem was with the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law and that she was ready and willing to stay with her husband separately. All attempts made by her to save the marriage and that too for the sake of child, appear to be the outcome of her sincere desire. On the other hand, as is revealed from his own deposition, as well as from the depositions of the defendant and other witnesses, the plaintiff is bent upon breaking the marriage. All attempts made by the defendant to save the marriage met with failure because there was no co-operation from the plaintiff. It was he who somehow, by hook or crook, wanted to put an end to the marriage. Hence, he also came about with the bogy of alleged adultery by the defendant. All attempts made by the defendant to save the marriage met with failure because there was no co-operation from the plaintiff. It was he who somehow, by hook or crook, wanted to put an end to the marriage. Hence, he also came about with the bogy of alleged adultery by the defendant. For that purpose, reliance is placed upon the said disputed letter or 7-5-1991. Much is said about the said letter by Mr. Usgaonkar. 32. Mr. Usgaonkar submitted that any unfounded allegation of adultery is sufficient for granting divorce as it amounts to cruelty. Very true ! But, if one goes through the said disputed letter of 7-5-1991, it will be revealed that the entire letter makes allegation and accusation about ill-treatment given to the defendant by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the defendant. So also the alleged ill-treatment meted out to the defendant at the hands of the plaintiff on the provocation and instigation of the sister-in-law. One stray sentence does find place therein about the husband having some affairs in the gulf countries somewhere. Capital is made only of that sentence and the plaint is amended by inserting paragraphs 13-A, 13-B and 13-C as if he was waiting for some move like this ! The moment he got some opportunity, he made a mountain out of a molehill. These allegations of adultery are denied by the defendant. Allegations of having illicit affairs with one beared man are made also against the defendant by the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law. The defendant does not appear to have made capital out of it. The plaintiff, however, has made capital out of the vague allegation of adultery allegedly made by the defendant in the said letter, when whole thrust of the said letter is one the ill-treatment and harassment by the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff was very eager to sever the matrimonial bond. It cannot be said, as argued by Mr. Usgaonkar that the defendant's willingness and readiness to come and stay with the plaintiff, is not sincere. This can never be said on the face of ample evidence brought on record by the defendant about the repeated and consistent attempts of reconciliation. Not a single instance of reconciliation is stated by the plaintiff or by any of his witnesses. Usgaonkar that the defendant's willingness and readiness to come and stay with the plaintiff, is not sincere. This can never be said on the face of ample evidence brought on record by the defendant about the repeated and consistent attempts of reconciliation. Not a single instance of reconciliation is stated by the plaintiff or by any of his witnesses. Thus, there is every room for saying that the plaintiff some how wanted to put an end to the marriage and get rid of the defendant. The defendant has, very rightly, stated in her deposition that the child is suffering because of the dispute. Indeed, this is always the case in all matrimonial disputes and children are the worst sufferers. The efforts made by the wife, therefore, to save the marriage in the interest of child, are commendable. It was erroneous on the part of the trial Court to grant the husband decree of divorce on the vague statement in letter dated 7-5-91, allegedly made as per the 'instructions' of the defendant. It is pertinent to note that in the cross-examination of the defendant, not a single question is put on this point. There is not a single sentence uttered by the plaintiff that because of this statement of alleged adultery which was mentioned in the said letter of 7-5-91, the plaintiff felt aggrieved or was hurt. The plaintiff has gone on and on narrating the incident of alleged slapping by the defendant on his face. Under these circumstances, if the decree of divorce is allowed to stand, the plaintiff's allegation that the wife had ill-treated him would stand vindicated, which is not the correct position. 33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the judgment and order dated 30-3-1999 passed by the trial Court should be not be allowed to stand. It cannot be said that the marriage is dead and over. The reliance of Mr. Usgaonkar on (V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.))2, 1994(1) Supreme Court 337, is rather misplaced. V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat was an extra-ordinary case, having unique features. This was also a case on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the cruelty on the part of the husband was of such a nature that the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the parties could not be reasonably expected to live together. This was also a case on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the cruelty on the part of the husband was of such a nature that the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the parties could not be reasonably expected to live together. The divorce petition was filed by the husband originally on the ground of adultery of the wife and in defence, the averments were made by the wife in the written statement alleging that the husband and his family members were lunatics. The husband was subjected to cross-examination on this aspect and the husband then amended the petition, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In fact, the case was so extra-ordinary that the Supreme Court ultimately withdraw the case to it, which was pending in the Delhi High Court and allowed the petition on the basis of the pleadings, without full trial. The Supreme Court observed :--- "..... Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself. But, while scrutinising the evidence on record to determine whether the ground(s) alleged is/are made out and in determining the relief to be granted, the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind. The usual step as the one taken by us herein can be resorted to only to clear up an insoluble mess, when the Court finds it in the interest of both the parties". 34. In the case at hand, however, it cannot be said that the circumstances are beyond redemption. The parties are not that old, nor there appears to be any irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as was the case in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (supra). Moreover, in this case, the child of tender age is involved, whose welfare has to be considered. First and foremost thing is that the plaintiff/husband has not been able to prove the ground on which he has claimed dissolution of marriage. In view of this, the appeal filed by the wife against the decree of divorce, granted by the trial Court, has to be allowed. Hence the following order : The First Appeal 85/99 is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30-3-1999 passed by the IInd Addl. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mapusa is, hereby, set aside and quashed. -----