Desertion and cruelty as grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 require strict proof of intentional abandonment and mental suffering, respectively.

( 1 ) THE appellant, petitioner filed a suit for divorce which was dismissed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Howrah by a judgment and decree dated 21. 8. 2000. Being aggrieved by such decision, the appellant has come before this Court.

( 2 ) HIS case in short is that he married the respondent Smt. Kumkum Chakraborty and the same was solemnised on 17. 6. 1982 according to Hindu rites and customs. Two children, one daughter and one son were born in such marriage. Father of the respondent, Shri Dilip Kumar Banerjee was a resident of Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh having no permanent house. The respondent went to visit Varanasi in August, 1990 accompanied by her brother. She refused to return from there without any reason inspite of several letters/requests by the petitioner and members of his family and in this way she left the matrimonial home leaving the child daughter who was a student of class-III. In October, 1991 she however returned to matrimonial home. Further allegation is that the respondent completely deserted the petitioner, who was compelled to stay in a room separately on account of respondent's refusal to cohabit with the petitioner. The further allegation of the appellant/husband is regarding several acts of cruelty committed by the respondent/wife. In this respect, the specific allegation is that the respondent is a lady of nagging character who used to utter slang and abusive languages to the petitioner and members of his family and who used to go out everyday at noon to stay in the house of widower brother-in-law after her sister's death and used to return home late at night, and sometime did not return even in the night, that the respondent refused to do any work for the family of the husband on the plea that she was not a maid servant or cook, that she filed a criminal case under section 498a of IPC against the appellant and members of his family falsely, that the respondent as a wife is guilty of deliberate refusal of sexual intercourse since over four years, respondent/wife even at one point of time denied the paternity of the petitioner in respect of her children.

( 3 ) THE wife/respondent contested the proceeding on a written statement denying all material allegation raised in the petition. It is specifically alleged that inspite of her request, the petitioner/appellant refused to cohabit with her and to live with her, with some motive. It is also her case that she is still ready to perform her marital obligation with the petitioner provided the petitioner/appellant also agrees to perform his part in such relation. The learned Judge who tried the suit raised number of issues including the issues touching the question of the existence of the grounds of divorce taken here by the petitioner/husband, namely, desertion and cruelty and through the judgment impugned came to a conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent deserted him. He also held that the petitioner failed to prove that the wife/respondent treated him with cruelty. With these findings, the Court below dismissed the suit.

( 4 ) IN the instant suit, the petitioner/husband has examined himself as his sole witness on facts. He has no doubt examined a formal witness a police constable as PW 2 who brought the original G. D. Entry No. 225 dated 5. 10. 91 and G. D. Entry No. 244 dated 4. 10. 91. On the other hand, the respondent/wife besides examining herself as OPW-1, also examined her brother Poltu Banerjee (OPW 2 ). Regarding desertion the evidence of the petitioner Pronab Kumar Chakraborty is that probably in July, 1990 the witness went to his father-in-law's house and requested his father-in-law to come over to his house, to take his wife to the house of the father-in-law for a few days for giving direction to her. In the month of August, his elder brother-in-law came to his house, took away his wife to their house at Benaras along with the son leaving the daughter who was then a student o