JUDGMENT K. KANNAN J. 1. The wife, who had sought for a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion is in appeal challenging the decree of dismissal. The circumstance of cruelty as narrated in the petition was that the husband was making persistent demands for dowry and had further demanded that a motorcycle should be purchased for him. This aspect was also supported in evidence through the father. The other instance of cruelty attributed to the husband is that he was a man of loose character and that he was in sexual relationship with a person other than his wife. In the course of evidence, the appellant had improved the version to say that he was having a sexual relationship with his brother's wife. 2. The manner of denial that has obtained to the averments to the petition is rather curious. The written statement is written in varnacular language which spells out in 11 lines referring to 11 paragraphs denying the averments. The translated version of the same is thus: “1. Contents of this para are incorrect. 2. Contents of para 2 are incorrect. 3. Contents of para 3 are partially correct. 4. Contents of para 4 are totally baseless. 5. Contents of para 5 are imaginary and incorrect. 6. In para 6, it is stated that the applicant left the matrimonial home in my absence. 7. The contents of para 7 are correct. 8. The contents of para 8 are correct. 9. Contents of para 9 are correct. 10. Contents of para 10 pertains to the Court. 11. Contents of para 11 pertains to the Court.” 3. At the trial, the appellant examined herself and her father. The husband has examined himself and gave evidence to the effect that he had made several attempts to take his wife to the matrimonial company but she is not willing to join. It is brought to evidence that after the wife had left the matrimonial house on 10.07.1995, the divorce petition had been filed by the wife on 25.08.1998 and immediately after a month after the filing of the petition, a panchayat had been convened on 06.09.1998 which was exhibited as Ext. R2. The panchayat records alleged the fact that the coduct of the wife was not good, whereas the husband was well behaved. R2. The panchayat records alleged the fact that the coduct of the wife was not good, whereas the husband was well behaved. This document which the appellant's father had signed was confronted to his wife in the cross-examination and she said that she was not allowed to open her mouth and the panchayatees took a decision on their own and the signature of her father was obtained by force. While I cannot generalize the abrasive conduct of the Panchayats in some parts of this State, I cannot also discard the explanation of the wife that the Panchayatees took a decision on their own and the wife was not allowed to explain anything. Even the tenor of the language used in the document running down the wife's conduct as unworthy and stating the husband was at all times well behaved betrays complete lack of fairness in approach and an abject surrender to gender bias, as is the wont of some khaps. The Court below took this letter to be an important piece of evidence that would disentitle the wife for claim of divorce. I am convinced that in this case, justice is derailed by the approach of the panchayatees. It is unworthy of acceptance on the line of reasoning of the judgment of Court below. The panchayatees record has come subsequent to the filing of the petition. The court would be abdicating its power if it would allow for the local busy-bodies to substitute the court's role especially, when a party complained that she was not allowed to open her mouth and that there was no fair play by the panchayat. 4. The manner of denials expressed in the statement of the respondent has to be understood in the context of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. The language applied is thus:- " R.5. Specific denial.-[1] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. [2] Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion require any such fact to be proved. [3] In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader. [4] Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced." Order 8 Rule 5 (3) itself makes a certain concession for the fact that the Court should invariably have due regard to the fact whether the defendant had engaged a pleader. It is not without relevance for in this case also, the husband did not engage a lawyer and filed the statement himself. The husband, however, was a policemen and his whole official work revolves around law enforcement. An allegation of matrimonial misconduct of having sexual relations with persons other than wife is a very serious imputation and if it is shown to be false it would give ground to attribute mental cruelty against the wife and deny her of the relief sought for. I would give allowance to the fact that the statement was filed by the husband without engaging a lawyer. I cannot still take the consequence of absence of express denial of even the plea of promiscuity as without any consequence. 5. The plea of illicit relationship with a close relative could obtain no better evidence than mere oral assertions to start with. An illicit relationship is a secret relationship and the court can only, therefore, examine whether a particular version evokes the confidence of Court from the given set of circumstances. The husband has explained his own conduct towards his sister-in-law-in reverential terms and he has not given any evidence in his chief examination about the conduct attributed to him in the statement. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the pleadings being laconic and skeletal, the husband ought to have at least given evidence denying the sexual involvement with his sister-in-law. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the pleadings being laconic and skeletal, the husband ought to have at least given evidence denying the sexual involvement with his sister-in-law. I hold that to be relevant and will hold that the husband's conduct as being not above board. 6. The plea of demand for dowry or for demand of motorcycle again is not a plea that could be expected to come through any written proof. It is also to be examined only in the context of how the evidence can be taken and whether the quality of evidence adduced by the wife evokes confidence. The women has borne through her life the sufference of living away from her matrimonial house and for having earned a living for herself and two children without assistance coming from the husband. I cannot take this to be a commonplace occurrence and a mere mischief by the wife to deprive of the company of the children of his father. 7. I would take the demands of dowry and the physical violence practiced on the husband as having been established by the oral assertion of the wife and her father. I will not go as far to say that the wife has proved the illicit relationship that she has alleged against her husband. But this is not the samething to say that she was making a false statement against her husband. I would only say that she had not established her assertion as regard the infidelity of the husband. Even in the appeal, I see from the records that the respondent was appearing in person and the court had sought the assistance of a senior counsel to present the case of the husband. There was no representation for the husband initially and the counsel who had been appointed to assist the court is not regularly in practice here in this Court. I am informed that he has shifted himself to practise in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I am setting this out only to say that even in a situation where serious allegations are made against the husband and the husband is not present in court to support his own version, I find the marriage has gone through many a tumble and there is no scope for any rapproachment. I am setting this out only to say that even in a situation where serious allegations are made against the husband and the husband is not present in court to support his own version, I find the marriage has gone through many a tumble and there is no scope for any rapproachment. I also notice from the records that there have been several attempts through the good offices of the Lok Adalat, permanently functioning in the premises of the High Court but to no avail. 8. The decree of dismissal of the Court below cannot be sustained. It is set aside and the wife's claim for divorce on the gound of cruelty practised by the husband is upheld. The appeal is allowed dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent.