G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.)THIS is an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment and decree dated 7th April, 1981 passed by the District Judge, Ajmer.
(2.)SMT . Chandrakanta -wife appellant sought divorce on various grounds including the ground of adultery against her husband, Rajesh, the respondent No. 1. The adultery partner Usha Singhi was also made a party. The District Judge, after trial of the case, found that the charge of adultery was proved though other charges regarding cruelty and desertion were not proved. However, after holding that, the adultery was proved; the District Judge dismissed the divorce petition on the ground that, in cross -examination, Smt. Chandrakanta has stated that both, the husband and wife, have consented to have divorce.
No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant before this Court. The rejection of divorce petition exhibits latest tendency of the Indian courts to become victim of old out dated obsolete thinking of segments of the society that women are to be treated as 'chattel' and they are to be made sex -dowry cocktail for satisfying 'lust of sex' and 'money' of the males. It should be kept in view that after coming into force of the Indian Constitution, the women have been given prime place in the Indian nation and they are equals in all respects. The women are not subservient and dependent on males and they have got constitutional legal rights to live respectfully with equal status and not to suffer indignities and humiliation. Rejecting a prayer of divorce in cases where the court has found that the husband was leading adulterous life, is violating the Indian Constitution by denial 'social justice' to woman spouse and perpetuating the atrocities and suffering on her.

(3.)JUDICIAL courts by this process become abettor in the barbarous crime of atrocities on women and indignity to sex which is yet weaker section in the society and requires extra ordinary protection by judicial courts to provide them an equal status with males.