U. SREE v. U. SRINIVAS

that she had been ill-treated and on the other that there A was cordial relationship. The High Court referred to the xerox copy of the letter Exhibit R-8 written in her handwriting to her parents and held that when the said letter was summoned from her father she stated that there was no such letter and on that ground the admissibility B _lNas called in question. The High Court held that when the efforts were made to get the primary evidence and it could not be obtained, the secondary evidence could be adduced and that would be admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The English translation. of the said c letter was marked as Exhibit R-9 which, according to the High Court, indicated that the wife had clearly stated that she had spoken ill of her mother-in-law and others and had expressed her desire to seek divorce as she could not stay any longer in the matrimonial home. It was held by the High Court that the conduct of the wife clearly established desertion and her behaviourial pattern exhibited mental cruelty meted out to the husband. Apart from concurring with the grant of permanent alimony, the High Court further directed the respondent-husband to E pay a sum of maintenance amounting to Rs.12,500/- to the appellant-wife and the minor child. 0 In the instant appeal, it was inter alia contended by the appellant that Exh. R-8 and R-9 were not admissible in evidence inasmuch as they could not be treated as F secondary evidence as envisaged under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and that the trial court as well as the High Court had failed to appreciate that neither mental cruelty nor desertion had been established as per the I~. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 · permits the parties to adduce secondary evidence, yet such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. H 260 - SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A In a case where the original documents are not produced at any time, nor has any factual foundation been laid for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a B document is inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section. The i;econdary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a C true copy of the original. Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Court to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon. [Para 17] (276-F-G; 277-A- D B]

1.2. In the case at hand, the trial court has really not discussed anything relating to foundational evidence. The High Court has only mentioned that when the letter (alleged to. have been written by the wife to her father) E was summoned and there was a denial, the secondary evidence is admissible. Such a view is neither legally sound nor in consonance with the pronouncements of this Court. Consequently, the photostat copy of the said letter is not admissible in evidence and the question as to whether the appellant had treated her husband with mental cruelty has to be dwelled upon, keeping the photostat copy of the said letter out of consideration. [Paras 18, 19] (277-C-E] F Ashok Dulichand v. Madahav/a/ Dube· (1975) 4 SCC G 664: 1976 (1) SCR 246; J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani (2007) 5 SCC 730: 2007 (5) SCR 367; M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu and Other (2010) 9 sec 712: 2010 (11) SCR 38 and H. Siddiqui (Dead) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam (2011) H 4 sec 240: 2011 (5) SCR 587 - relied on. U. SREE v. U. SRINIVAS 261

2.1. The conception of cruelty has inseparable nexus A with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperament and emotions that have been conditioned by the social status. When the evidence brought on B record clearly establish a sustained attitude of causing humiliation and calculated torture on the part of the wife to make the life of the husband miserable, it would amount to mental cruelty. Emphasis is to be laid on the behavioral pattern of the wife whereby a dent is created c in the reputation of the husband, regard being had to the fact that reputation is the salt of life. [Para 22) [279-A·EJ

2.2. In the case at hand, the husband has clearly deposed about the constant and consistent ill-treatment meted out to him by the wife inasmuch as she had shown D her immense dislike to his "sadhna" in music and had exhibited total indifference and, in a way, contempt to the tradition of teacher and disciple. It has graphically been demonstrated that she had not shown the slightest concern for the public image of her husband on many an E occasion by putting him in a situation of embarrassment leading to humiliation. She has made wild allegations about the conspiracy in the family of her husband to get him re-married for the greed of dowry and there is no iota of evidence on record to substantiate the same. This, in F fact, is an aspersion not only on the character of the husband but also a maladroit effort to malign the reputation of the family. The trial court as well as the High Court have clearly analysed the evidence and recorded a finding that the wife had treated the husband with G mental cruelty. True it is, there is some reference in that regard to the photostat copy of the letter (allegedly written by the wife to her father) which is not admissible in evidence but the other evidence brought on record clearly support the findings recorded by the Family H 262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A Judge and the High Court. [Para 23] [279-E-F; 280-A-C]