RAVI RANJAN, J.

I have heard the parties and perused the record of this appeal.

2. This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria in Matrimonial Suit No.14/2007 instituted by the respondent no.1 by which the court below has dissolved the marriage of the respondent no.1 and the appellant by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. However, a finding has been recorded that allegation of adultery against the appellant with any person including the opposite party nos.2 and 3, i.e., the respondent nos.2 and 3 could not be proved and, as such, no order has been passed against them.

3. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed the aforesaid matrimonial case for annulment of his marriage with the appellant no.1 which was solemnized in the year 1996 in accordance with the Hindu rites. It is alleged in the plaint that, right from the beginning itself, the opposite party-appellant no.1 had shown her unhappiness towards the marriage as if it was solemnized against her will. A few instances have also been recorded in the plaint by which she had publicly shown her unhappiness. It has further been alleged in the plaint that the marriage in fact could not be consummated as the opposite party no.1-appellant never agreed for the same. Allegation has also been made regarding her inclination towards one Anil Kumar who happened to be the junior working with her father who was a lawyer at Begusarai. It is also alleged that she was never ready to lead a conjugal life with the plaintiff and, to defame him, she started practicing as a lawyer in the year 2000. She used not to sit at the place where the petitioner was sitting in the Advocate Association. The plaintiff further alleges that he almost left his practice in view of such behaviour of his wife but upon intervention of his well-wishers he again started practicing as a lawyer. Further allegation in the plaint is that the opposite party no.1-appellant came in contact with the opposite party-respondent no.2 Sh. N. K. Kund who was posted in the Telephone Department and both were seen walking together in the market and she even used to go out of Khagaria with him. The aforesaid fact became a matter of gossip in the petitioner’s village which was also not tolerable as the plaintiff?s father was a renowned and reputed lawyer and his grand father was a well known personality of the locality. Further allegation is that due to her influence upon the opposite party-respondent no.2, he managed to engage her as counsel for the BSNL. Though minimum requirement for such engagement was 10 years practice as a lawyer but within 1-2 years she was given such assignment. It is alleged that the opposite party no.1- appellant went away on 15.03.2003 to Begusarai never to come back to her matrimonial house rather she used to come to Khagaria for legal practice from Begusarai itself and since then the petitioner is leading a deserted life. It is also alleged that the opposite party-respondent no.1 had influenced his younger brother Prince Kumar, i.e, the opposite party-respondent no.3 also and had tried to create disruption in the family. She had left her matrimonial house and began to live at Begusarai and also took a house situated at Station Road, Khagaria on rent and started practicing with the opposite party-respondent no.3 as her junior. Both used to work together in the day time and in the evening she used to come back to Begusarai. Further allegation is that at the instance of the wife, he was insulted in Chitragupta Nagar Police Station and she also started creating unlawful obstructions with respect to the properties of the family with the help of the opposite party-respondent no.3. Thus, the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the marriage was never consummated and her behaviour was cruel and the wife has also deserted him which became the cause of action for institution of the case.

4. The opposite pa