Ravi Ranjan, J.

1. Appellant-husband being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1998, passed by Smt. Rekha Kumari, Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 166 of 1996 whereby his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 has been dismissed, has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant-husband filed Matrimonial Case No. 166 of 1996 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the sole respondent by grant of a decree of divorce. According to him his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 18.5.1989 at Saguna P.S.-Danapur, District- Patna according to Hindu Rites and Customs. According to him after two days of marriage the respondent returned to her fathers house after taking back all her belongings, never to come back to her matrimonial house. Further case of the petitioner-appellant is that he went to his Sasural tor "Rukhsati" in 1989 but the respondent refused to come and he was assaulted and threatened by her father. Subsequently the respondent filed a Maintenance Case bearing No. 171(M) 1990 against the appellant husband which was disposed of on 25.6.1995 by the concerned Court allowing monthly maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to be paid by the husband to the wife. Thereafter appellant-husband filed Matrimonial Case No. 90 of 1990/18/1992 for grant of a decree of divorce. However, the same was dismissed by judgment dated 17.6.1992 by Shri N.C. Lala, Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. Further case of the husband is that the respondent- wife, being a daughter of Retired Assistant Chief Accounts Officer, Central Excise, Patna is very much proud of her parents and other relatives. Her behaviour was only to torture and disturb the mental peace of the petitioner-appellant and thus she has deserted him. As a result of which he and his family member had to suffer social humiliation at the hands of the respondent and his social status has been lost. Thus, the husband had to take recourse to filing of the instant case.

3. The respondent-wife filed written statement refuting all the allegations made by the husband and has stated that the petitioner-appellant had earlier filed Matrimonial Case No. 90 of 1990 on the ground of adultery and cruelty which was dismissed on contest hence according to her, the present case was barred by the principle of res judicata. The respondent-wife admitted the marriage but has denied to have returned to her "Naihar" with all her assets after two days only. She, in fact, stayed at her matrimonial house for about three weeks and thereafter came to her fathers place. Thereafter the petitioner-appellant never came to take her back in spite of repeated persuations by the parents and other relatives of the respondent as a result of which finding no other option she had to file Maintenance Case No. 171(M) 1990 which was allowed. Thus, according to respondent in fact it is the petitioner-appellant who has deserted the respondent.

4. On consideration of the pleading of parties the trial court framed following issues:

1. Whether the case as framed maintainable?

2. Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the case?

3. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty?

4. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition?

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce, as prayed for.

6. Whether the respondent is entitled to get permanent alimony?

7. To what other relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled?

5. It is apparent from the aforementioned facts that the petitioner has filed his case chiefly on two grounds, cruelty and desertion. The petitioner-appellant has examined altogether six witnesses. P.W, 4 Binod Kumar is the petitioner himself, P.W. 1 Basudeo Pd. is the father of the petitioner whereas petitioner no. 2 is Rabindra Kumar Gupta, P.W. 5 is Atul Kuma