‘‘Applying the same ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case, I have every reason to hold that the prayer for reconciliation between the parties and re-union between them would be a futile exercise at this stage, since in consideration to the serious nature of mutual allegations, their marital relationship is found to be beyond repair or to say it has broken irretrievably. Moreover, it has aptly been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent’s dubbing her husband and father-inlaw as ‘eunuch’ meaning thereby (a man who has been castrated), as per ‘‘Oxford Dictionary’’, in her written statement and asserting the same during her cross-examination, of course, with lame explanation, without expressing any grief or remorse or sheer mistake on her part is certainly unwarranted, unjustified and reprehensible aspersions on them. The same can be taken as unreasonable. Substantial any very ‘‘grave and weighty’’ allegation causing mental pain, anguish and suffering to them having regard to their education, living standard and social status etc. Therefore, the mental cruelty that has been caused to them is of such a nature that it would make not possible for the petitioner to live with the respondent any longer.’’
