The ground of cruelty is not established if the respondent wife had a genuine apprehension about her husband's relationship with another woman, who was residing in the same house, and the respondent wife's statements in the written statement in the earlier suit involving the petitioner and the other woman did not amount to cruelty as they were made on the basis of objective factors.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, Madan Mohan Manna, filed an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree against the respondent/wife annulling the marriage and such other reliefs. The suit was contested by the respondent/wife, Chitra Manna. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit.

( 2 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against that judgment of dismiss 3. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties took place on 12. 3. 80, according to Hindu rites and customs. It is also not disputed that the party resided together in the matrimonial home for about seven days. According to the petitioner, after that, the respondent's father took her away with her ornaments and other articles. The petitioner further alleged that on diverse dates, he made attempts to bring back the wife, but all these attempts became futile as the respondent refused to come to the matrimonial home. On 7. 7. 80 the petitioner sent a registered letter through advocate, calling upon the respondent to come back within seven days. In the petition itself, it is admitted that in the reply dated 16. 7. 80, the respondent referred to an application before the Gram Panchayat for redress. After all that, the petition filed Matrimonial Suit No. 85 of 1980 for restitution of conjugal right. the respondent filed a written statement in that suit. The petitioner made grievance that in that written statement, the respondent made false allegations a gave bad name against the petitioner, involving one Malina Patra. The petitioner then gave an account why and under what circumstances he residing in the same house with Malina, who was described as the wife of the cousin of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the allegations cause mental shock to the petitioner and it would not be possible to live with the respondent any more. So the petitioner submitted, he withdrew the Matrinominal Suit No. 85 of 1980 and filed the present suit.

( 3 ) IN the written statement filed by the respondent, she denied that petitioner or Renu Bera or Nemai Patra ever went to bring her back. paragraph 17 of the written statement, the respondent reiterated that petitioner was living in adultery with a married woman, Smt. Malina Pal. Then there were allegations that the respondent herself was mentally and physically tortured by her husband and the said Malina Patra. In paragraph 23 (c) of the written statement, once again it is mentioned that from very first day of, the respondent's stay at the place of the petitioner, (the respondent) came to know that the petitioner was living in adultery with Malina Patra. According to the respondent, she was sent back to her poor father's house within a week after marriage. With reference to the previous Matrimonial Suit, the respondent pointed out in the written statement that after an order was passed against the petitioner for payment at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month, that suit was withdrawn in order to avoid payment.

( 4 ) THESE, in short, were the respective cases of the parties.

( 5 ) MR. Dutta, the learned Advocate, has appeared for the appellant/husband. Before this Court, no body appeared to argue the case on behalf of the respondent. So the matter was heard ex parte.

( 6 ) THE suit of the husband is essentially based on the ground of cruelty. Mr. Dutta, the learned advocate for the appellant/husband, has also tried to make out a ground of desertion. We propose to dispose of that submission at the very first instance. We are of the view that the ground of desertion is not tenable, in view of the fact that two years have not elapsed after the said date of desertion, even if it be assumed that the respondent/wife had deserted. Admittedly, the marriage took place on 12. 3. 80. It is also admitted that the parties resided together for seven days. The suit was filed on 25. 9. 81. Therefore, apart from the question whether the wife was guilty of desertion there remains the patent fact that after the said date, two ye