The continuous absence of a spouse from the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse can constitute mental cruelty towards the other spouse and may entitle the latter to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 1 ) THE wife in a matrimonial suit is the appellant before us. The husband sued for divorce on the ground that the wife was guilty of cruelty and desertion. The. case of cruelty and desertion was, however, denied by the wife. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court found that the case of desertion was not proved by the husband, but held that the husband was entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the Trial Court this appeal has been preferred.

( 2 ) IN the plaint the case of cruelty and desertion as made out by the husband / respondent may be stated in a nutshell which is as follows : the marriage between the wife/appellant and the husband/respondent was solemnised according to Hindu rites on 10th March, 1984. After the marriage the wife went to her matrimonial home and there the Boubhat ceremony was held on 12th March, 1984. On the 15th March, 1984, the wife fell seriously ill and she was vomiting blood accompanied with prolonged cough. The husband called a doctor, who attended her and within 7 days she partly recovered from the acute stage of her ailments. As the wife insisted on for taking her to her father's place so that she could be under the treatment of their family physician, the husband on 25th March, 1984 accompanied her to her father's house and made all arrangements for her treatment. He used to visit his in-law's house frequently and pay all expenses for her maintenance and treatment. But even after her recovery she was not inclined to return to her matrimonial home at Panihati on the plea that she was in the family way and when the said fact was brought to the notice of her parents, they assured the husband that they would send her back to the matrimonial home within a fortnight following. But the said assurance was found to be a big hoax. In the following months also she was not sent back to her matrimonial home, nor had she any intention to come back there. In spite of repeated requests she on some pretexts or other avoided returning back to her matrimonial home. In spite of the aforesaid conduct of the wife, the husband used to meet her in his in-law's house and as she was in the family way, he used to bear all expenses for her maintenance. A female child was born out of this wedlock on 21st March, 1985. In spite of the aforesaid conduct of the wife, the husband used to meet her at his father-in-law's house and tried to bring her back to her matrimonial home. An offer was, however, made by the parents of the wife to the husband to stay in his in-law's house as Gharjamai, which the husband could not agree. In spite of all attempts by the father of the husband, the wife did not return to Panihati. The father of the husband on 17th April, 1985 went to the residence of the in laws of the husband in order to bring back the wife in her matrimonial home. But, the father of the husband was insulted by the father of the wife. On 17th April, 1985 again the husband went to his father-in-law's house to bring back the wife, but to no effect. He was even threatened with dire consequences, if he would try to come to the in-law's house once again. These acts of physical and mental torture perpetrated on Utpal which told upon his health severely and his physical constitution was very much reduced. He wanted to lead a happy conjugal life with his wife, but the latter without reasonable excuse and with a view to breaking the matrimonial home withdrew herself from his society and deserted the matrimonial home on 25. 3. 1985. Due to the habitual, wilful, motivated and deliberate acts of the wife in not coming back to her matrimonial home and in not offering the husband her association and keeping the husband deprived of the usual physical and mental comforts, the wife was guilty of the acts of desertion and cruelty. It was further alleged that the wife instituted a petition for maintenance under Sect