Arijit Pasayat, CJ.

Petitioner sought a decree for dissolution of her marriage with respondent on alleged ground of cruelty and desertion by moving a petition under S.10 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short, 'the Act').

2. Factual position, as stated by petitioner in a nutshell, is as follows: Petitioner and respondent are Syrian Christians. Their marriage was solemnised on 30.9.1985 according to custom of community. A sum of Rs. 41,000/- was given to respondent as "Sthreedhan" by petitioner's parents. A property was purchased in their joint names by sale deed dated 27.11.1987. Amount given by way of Sthreedhan was utilised towards sale consideration. Every now and then, respondent physically assaulted petitioner and she had to take refuge in her parental house in order to escape from cruel behaviour of respondent. Respondent's mental condition was abnormal and had to undergo treatment for mental disorder before and after marriage. On these occasions, physical and mental harassments were more aggressive. Petitioner gave birth to a male child. On 18.10.1990, as it became impossible for her to live with her husband, she, along with the child, was forced to leave the company of respondent, only to save her own as well as the life of her child. On intervention of mediators, property purchased on 27.11.1987, was partitioned and a deed was executed on 14.2.1991. Petitioner sold her share in the property. After 18.10.1990, they never lived together and respondent never cared to maintain her and the child. Petition under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "the Code') was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanjirappally for getting maintenance. Respondent did not contest the petition and maintenance was granted to petitioner and the child. Even after passing of the order in the petition under S.125 of the Code, respondent did not pay any amount. On few occasions, respondent came to the house of petitioner only to create further troubles and ugly scenes. Therefore, complaints were filed before police. It was the stand o: petitioner that respondent wilfully deserted her from 18.10.1990, without any reasonable excuse or cause.

3. A detailed objection was filed by respondent. His stand was that petition has been filed without any bonafides making false allegations. Entire consideration for joint property purchased was paid by him. According to him, name of petitioner was included as a result of the pressure tactics adopted by petitioner's father. Respondent was often harassed by petitioner's father physically and mentally. Such acts resulted in mental agony to respondent, which resulted in derangement of his mental balance. He was admitted in Mandiram Hospital for treatment. He was not suffering from any mental ailment before marriage. Allegation of cruelty was also denied. It was his stand that petitioner had left his company on her own without any valid reason. It was his allegation that many valuable articles were taken away by petitioner at that time which were really owned by respondent. This was done while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital. He was not aware of any proceedings under S.125 of the Code. He had requested petitioner to come back to his house. There was no positive response. On the contrary, he was brutally manhandled by his father-in-law and his relatives. It was submitted that there was no ground for petitioner to seek a decree for dissolution of the marriage.

4. Petitioner was examined as PW1 while respondent was examined as CPW 1.

5. Learned trial judge, on consideration of materials on record, held that there was desertion as well as cruelty and, therefore, in the absence of any material to prove collusion between the parties, decree for dissolution of marriage was granted. As required under S.17 of the Act reference has been made to this Court.

6. Dissolution of marriage is dealt with in S.10 of Chapter III of the Act. Cruelty is a ground for dissolution o