JUDGMENT :

PRASENJIT BISWAS, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge 4th Court, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman in Matrimonial Suit No. 33 of 2016 whereby the application filed by the respondent husband for grant of decree of divorce u/s 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 was allowed. The wife is in appeal before this court.

2. The parties got married on 23.11.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs at the house of the appellant. Soon after the marriage difference and disputes have been cropped up in between them. It was pleaded that the appellant/wife told the respondent that she had no intention to marry him and is not willing to live with him. It is stated by the husband that the appellant/wife used to say that her marriage had been given by her parents with him by way of exercising force. Despite hearing this respondent kept himself mum with hope that his wife would change her habit and normal conjugal life would restore between them.

3. The husband further pleaded that this appellant used to pickup quarrel with him and his mother and abused them with filthy languages and also used to say that she would not live with him in anyway and ultimately this appellant/wife left for her father’s house on 28.12.2012. Thereafter the respondent on many questions requested this appellant to come back but his request was ended in vain. Therefore, when all the efforts made by him went on vain he instituted a case for restitution of conjugal rights which was subsequently withdrawn by the respondent as this appellant/wife filed a complaint case against him under section 498A of I.P.C. Since 28.12.2012 the parties had not lived together as husband and wife and the appellate/wife wilfully deserted the respondent for a continuous period of more than two years the application was filed seeking divorce.

4. Reply has been filed by the wife wherein she denied all the averments and instead it is stated that she had married the respondent to lead a happy conjugal life but the respondent and his mother started making demands and sarcastic comments on the wife or demand of dowry. The wife further states that having not fulfilled the demand of dowry, the dispute further aggravated and she was put to torture. However, since she wanted to save her marriage, she continued but eventually on 20.03.2013 she was abused, assaulted and was ousted from the house and forced to stay at her matrimonial house. On 22.03.2013 this appellant and her parents went to her matrimonial home but the petitioner did not allow her to enter in the house. The wife further stated that she had love and affection towards the respondent and is ready and willing to lead their conjugal life.

5. The learned trial court on the basis of pleadings framed the issues as to whether the wife has treated the husband with cruelty and deserted him and in order to prove the facts, the husband examined himself as PW1 whereas the wife has examined herself. The learned trial court after evaluating entire facts and evidence passed a decree in favour of the husband under section 13 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , therefore, the instant appeal by the wife.

6. The Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the husband who in his cross-examination admitted that in the application for restitution of conjugal rights he stated that their marriage was consummated. Our attention was drawn about the evidence