Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. This is husband's appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') assailing the legality and validity of the judgment rendered by the Family Court, Raigarh, dismissing his application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act, 1955') for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

2. The appellant/husband (for brevity 'husband') moved the subject application with the averment that they were married at Tamnar, District Raigarh on 3.7.2002 and thereafter the respondent/wife (for brevity 'wife') came to his residence at Village Chaple. During the first night, the wife informed him that she has been married contrary to her wishes/ desires and he is not a person as per her dreams. Thus the marriage was not consummated on that day. In due course, she started behaving indifferently and used to get irritated on trivial issues. She would regularly state that since she has been married contrary to her wishes, she does not want to reside with the husband. After one month of marriage, she went to her parental village and as agreed, she was required to come back after 15 days but she did not return nor sent any information to the husband. On 30th August, 2002, the husband went to village Tamnar with one friend to bring back his wife but she refused to return to the matrimonial house. Her relatives stated that she would be sent to Chaple after a week. She did return on 5.9.2002 but soon after her relatives left the husband's house, she started raising dispute and quarrel and threatened to commit suicide to falsely implicate the husband and his relatives in a criminal case. On 3.12.2002, she went back to her parental house and since thereafter she did not return. The husband made efforts and went to the wife's residence on 17.9.2003 along with his friends and relatives to bring back his wife, however, she refused to join and resume matrimonial chord.

3. The wife contested the application and denied plaint allegations. She further averred that the husband's relatives threw the articles gifted at the time of marriage under her feet and stated that the husband has not been gifted golden chain and the motorcycle has been registered in the wife's name. According to her, her husband and mother-in-law used to extract rigorous work from her and were always finding fault with the meals prepared by her. She was always instructed to prepare different dishes for different member of the family and was made to do entire household work. Thus, she was treated with cruelty. She would deny that on 30th August, 2002 or on 17.9.2003, the husband came to her parental house. According to her, her first visit to her parental house happened because according to custom, newly wedded wife would not stay in her in-laws' house in the month of Sawan. She would categorically state that before marriage she was obtaining training for becoming a LIC agent, examination of which was scheduled on 25.8.2002, therefore, she went to write the examination with the consent of her husband. However, written statement is discreetly silent as to the efforts made by her to resume matrimonial chord after 17.9.2003. According to her, the husband did not attend the rituals after the death of her father on 1.5.2005.

4. Both the parties examined their witnesses. The husband was examined as AW-1; his younger brother Ramesh Kumar Bahidar was examined as AW-2; Narayan Prasad Patel was examined as AW-3 and Bhojram was examined as AW-4 whereas, the wife examined herself as NAW-1; Gangadhar was examined as NAW-2; Khemraj was examined as NAW- 3 and Anil Kumar Patnaik was examined as NAW-4. The affidavit of one Radha was filed under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC but she was not produced for cross-examination, therefore, her affidavit is inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court has found that the husband has failed to prove the ground of cruelty and desertion.

5. We shall deal and discuss with the evidenc