Mahinder Narain, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a husband s appeal against the order of Shri G. S. Dhaka, Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 23/1/1982 in H. M. A Case No. 470 of 1979.

( 2 ) BY the said order the Additional District Judge has dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage, filed by the husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred -to as the Act )

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the petition are that the marriage was solemnised betwee n the parlies on 26/6/1977 at village Prablad Pur, Delhi in accordance with Hindu rites The partics lived together for a short while as a husband and wife, at 117, Main Bazar, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi, in the house where the husband used to reside with. his mother and father.

( 4 ) NO child was born to the parties.

( 5 ) THE husband in his petition averred a large number of acts which according to the husband was cruelty to him. The husband averted inter alia that the wife had failed to discharge matrimonial obligations and that she withdrew herself away from cohabitation with him; that sexual urge of the husband was not permitted to be satisfied with the wife, as she left him and lived mostly with her parents; that the wife constantly urged the husband to separate from his parents; that the wife has asserted that as she had been running nursery classes she earned more than the husband; that the wife compared the status of the husband s parents with the status of her parents; that the wife was non-cooperative with the mother-in-law; that in view of the happening of certain -events the husband doubted the chastity of the wife; that the wife used to call the husband impotent; that the brothers and fher of the petitioner created an incident on 18/4/1978 which created a difficult situation so much so that a report about the incident of 18/4/1978 had to be lodged with the police on 24/4/1978, as the petitioner had left the house of the husband with her brothers after packing up a suit case on that date.

( 6 ) THE averments made in the petition were denied in the written statement filed by the wife. The wife asserted inter alia that the petitioner and his family members are greedy and they bad sent the wife away to collect dowry; that the husband used to enjoy the society of drunkards and asked the wife to join him and his friends in drinking; that the respondent used to abuse, insult and intimidate her and her parents; that threatening letters were written to the wife (no such letters were produced or proved ). It wai said that the husband used to call the parents of the respondent "wretched persons"; and that 15 tolas of gold and 30 tolas of silver were left behind in the husband s house. In the replication filed reference was made to alleged immoral deeds of the wife and it was contended that the false assertions which had been made in the written statement are cruelty.

( 7 ) IN this petition, I find a peculiar use of the terms "animus deserandi". It is made all the more curious because the word "animus deserandi " have been used in connection with cruelty.

( 8 ) IN the case ofbipin Chandra v. Prabhawati, AIR 1957 SC 176, the Supreme Court had said that in order to establish desertion two conditions had to be satisfied. (1) Factum of separation; (2) intention to bring cohabitation permanently to a close (Animus Deserandi ). The terms animus deserendi is used in the context of desertion only. Yet in this case, the pleadings use it in connection with "cruelty". This is an unjustified use of this term. It is likely to lead to confusion, which ought to be avoided.

( 9 ) THE assertions made in paragraph 4 of the petition, (as contained in this petition), need to be set out and they arc set out here below :-

"4. That the behaviour and conduct of the respondent has been cruel towards the petitioner after sometime of the marriage and she has been quilty of gross mis-conduct by her calculated acts of animus deserendi and cruelty, and no less cruel by her parents,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document