Ajit Singh, J.

By this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, appellant husband Parimal Chanda has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 28/03/2017 passed by the District Judge, Hailakandi, dismissing his suit for dissolution of his marriage with his respondent wife-Sobita Chanda.

2. According to the appellant's case, he married the respondent on 03.02.2006 and they were known to each other 6-7 years prior to their marriage. After marriage, they both lived in a rented house. He is a barber having a parlour whereas respondent is an ANM Nurse. After the appointment of respondent as Nurse, she has been allotted a government quarter. They, therefore, shifted in the government quarter where they lived peacefully for 3-4 months. The appellant has further averred that since the respondent started earning much more money than him as Nurse, she humiliated him all the time and even called him not fit enough to maintain her. On 19.12.2010, the respondent beat him and later she ousted him from her quarter on 24.9.2011, but with the intervention of local people he again started residing with her. But again on 24.2.2013, the respondent finally ousted him and since then he is living with his partner in a separate house. According to the appellant, the respondent because of her economic pre-dominance over him has subjected him to continuous humiliation and to such cruelty that there is no chance of revival of their marriage and therefore he is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

3. On the other hand, respondent contested the suit by filing written statement denying the allegations levelled against her. She has also alleged that the appellant used to demand money from her and even asked her to hand him over her ATM card, which she denied to comply. Therefore, the appellant started behaving her with both mental as well as physical cruelty. The appellant demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- in addition to Rs. 3,00,000/- which she brought at the time of her marriage. He also developed an illicit relationship with the sister-in-law of one Madhu Chanda and wishes to marry her for which he used to pick up quarrel with the respondent and also used to torture her. So, the respondent filed a case of domestic violence against him. She has also stated that she wishes to stay with the appellant, if he accepts her, and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The appellant examined himself as PW-1, his childhood friend Paltu Kar as PW-2 and Abul Hasan Mazumdar as PW-3 whereas respondent examined herself as DW-1 and her sister-Solil Chanda- as DW-2 and Smti Rekha Paul as DW-3 respectively.

5. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence and hearing the parties, did not agree with the appellant and dismissed his suit by the impugned judgment and decree. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and committed an illegality in dismissing his suit for divorce.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We have also perused the record. The appellant has deposed that respondent misbehaved with him all the time which resulted into frequent quarrels between them. The appellant has also testified that the respondent after being appointed as a Nurse became financially strong and she having regard to her financial pre-dominance over him, not only continuously humiliated, but also ousted him from her quarter and that now he will never return back to her even if she wants him to return in the quarter. As mentioned above, Paltu Kar is examined by the appellant as his childhood friend. This witness admits in his cross examination that he has not witnessed any such incident between the appellant and respondent nor has heard any blame against the respondent. It is thus clear that the appellant has not put any blame against the respondent to Paltu Kar. Had the respondent really treated the appel