ORDER
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the wife against the order of the learned District Judge, Rangareddy Dist. ‘rejecting’ her application for grant of divorce and dissolution of marriage under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The parties are Christians. They were married on 17-5-1972. By the time of marriage, there was age disparity of nearly 20 years between the wife and the husband. They have three children. The eldest among them is about 22 years by now. The petition for divorce was filed on various grounds making very serious allegations against the respondent-husband. Inter alia, it is alleged that the husband was treating her cruelly even going to the extent of forcing her to have sax with others, beating her now and then and locking her up in a room and forcing her to have unnatural sex with him.
2. The husband was emphatic in his denial. He said that he was aged about 54 years and he was a chronic diabetic and there was absolutely no reason or possibility for him to indulge in the acts attributed. Series of counter-allegations are made against the wife and the husband asserts that the appellant disrupted the family harmony.
3. Admittedly the parties have not been living together for nearly a decade. The learned District Judge held that none of the grounds for dissolution of the marriage as specified under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act could be established by the wife and, hence, declined to grant the relief.
4. However much we feel that it is a case of irretrievable break-down of marital life,
having regard to the state of law as it exists today, we are not in a position to dissolve the marriage. It is unfortunate that exhortations of the High Courts and the Supreme Court and the occasional protests of public spirited people and women welfare organisations to effect changes in the archaic law which has the potentiality of gender discrimination have not yielded any fruits so far. All the provisions of a century old Indian Divorce Act remain in tact today immune from sociological progression and egalitarian impact of the Constitution. If the mutual consent had been a ground for divorce, perhaps in this case, we would have brought about the result of dissolution by persuading the parties to agree to that course. But, that is not possible.
5. Considering the grounds pleaded for divorce and the evidence on record, we are unable to say that it is a fit case to grant divorce. The evidence on record is not convincing or cogent enough to establish the heinous act of sodomy that has been imputed to the husband. The learned District Judge rightly commented that the appellant could not spell out specific details of the alleged sodomy committed by the husband though she was examined in camera. In the petition, it is stated that on the night of 18-12-1985, the respondent, at the point of knife, committed sodomy, but in her deposition before the Court, she did not state that at the point of knife the husband had unnatural sex with her on that day. As observed by the lower Court, if any such atrocious act had been committed by the husband, she would have revealed the same at least to her mother, who was examined as PW 2. There is oath against oath. The evidence of the appellant does not, inspire any confidence on this aspect of the case even judged from the stand point of probabilities. We are, therefore, unable to say that the finding of the trial Court that there was no satisfactory proof of the respondent having committed sodomy is erroneous. Perhaps, the appellant was driven to indulge in a vicious allegation of this nature, having been left with no other way to get divorce under the Act.
6. The other ground is that the respondent was treating her cruelly and she was
being subjected to physical torture. The son of the appellant — R.W. 3 who is a grown-up boy and has no axe to grind against the appellant, categorically stated that his mother was not beaten by his father and that his father only used to chastise her whenever she came home late in the night. Apart from that, mere proof of cruelty is not sufficient to dissolve the marriage under Sec. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The antiquated Indian Divorce Act filled with obsolete concepts of marital relations insists proof of cruelty coupled with adultery for getting divorce. There is no allegation of adultery in the instant case, not to speak its proof.
7. Under these circumstances, we have no option but to confirm the judgment under appeal. The appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
8. It is needless to observe that the dismissal of this appeal does not come in the way of seeking appropriate relief by way of judicial separation or otherwise if such circumstances exist.
9. Appeal dismissed.