Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.

Challenge in this appeal is levied to the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2017 of the Additional District Judge, Bhanupratappur, district North Bastar, Ranker C.G. in Civil Suit No. 12A/2016 vide Annexure A-1 whereby and whereunder the trial Court dismissed the divorce petition filed by appellant-husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in brevity 'the Act of 1955') against the respondent-wife.

2. This is admitted by the respondent that marriage of both parties was solemnized in the year 2006 in residential place of her father village PV48 in accordance with Bengali rights and rituals, after the marriage she resided in his house at village PV37 where they led the conjugal life, 'now she is living separately from him in her paternal house.

3. In brief, appellant's case is that two years after the marriage she started quarreling with him, she used to go to her maternal house without intimating him, she is living separately from him since eight years back. She used to give threat to him to implicate in a false dowry case. He had tried to bring her back, but she refused to live with him.

4. In brief, the respondent's case is that she lived in his house at village PV37 till June. 2016. He harassed her saying that she is less educated and he got less dowry. She had not procreated child, thus, he was taunting that she is barren. Due to harassment, she came in her maternal house after June, 2016.

5. After conclusion of the trial, the trial Court passed aforesaid judgment and decree. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal.

6. Shri D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence properly. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court are bad in the eyes of law. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree may be set aside and a decree of divorce may be granted.

7. Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsel for the respondent argued that the impugned judgment and decree are in accordance with law and do not call for any interference by this Court, thus, the appeal may be dismissed.

8. Points for determination : -

There are following points for determination in this case : -

(1) Whether after solemnization of the marriage, the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty ?

(2) Whether the respondent has deserted the appellant for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of him ?

(3) Whether the appellant is entitled to get the decree of divorce for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion ?

(4) Relief and costs.

Points for determination No. 1 & 2 : Findings with reasons : -

9. Looking to the convenience, points for determination No. 1 and 2 are disposed of simultaneously.

10. The trial Court has not framed issue regarding desertion, though it ought to have done it. The evidence available on record shows that the appellant and the respondent have adduced evidence regarding desertion. The evidence available on record is sufficient to enable this Court to pronounce the judgment. Non-framing of additional issue regarding desertion does not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. Thus, looking to the provisions of Order 41, Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in brevity 'the CPC), this Court finds that it may pronounce the judgment in this appeal.

11. AW1 Devashish Sarkar says in para 3, 8, 11 and 13 of his statement given on oath that the respondent was quarreling with him on petty matters. He is living separately from her since 8 years back, she was threatening that she will implicate him in false dowry case.

12. AW2 Chitranjan Mandal says in para 4 of his statement given on oath that he was present in a meeting held regarding quarrel between appellant and respondent.

13. AW3 Ashok Das says in paras 3. 8 and 11 of his statement given on oath that 2-2 years after the marriage t