Hari Shankar Prasad, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.3.1993 and 12.3.1993 respectively passed in Matrimonial Title Suit. No. 67 of 1989 (T.R. No. 2 of 1992) whereby and whereunder the learned VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi dismissed the suit.

2. The fact of the case he in narrow compass. Appellant who is plaintiff in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 67 of 1989 filed a Matrimonial Title Suit No. 67 of 1989 against the respondent wife for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of desertion, adultery and cruelty alleging therein that he was married with the respondent No. 1-wife in the year 1963 according to the Hindu rites at the residence of respondent in village Nayangaon. P.S. Porbatta, Dis-trict-Khagaria. Thereafter out of the wedlock, a son, namely, Chulbullu was born to them in the year 1966. Immediately after a month or two of solemnization of the marriage, the respondent No. 1 started cruel behaviour with the petitioner-appellant, as the respondent No. 1 was illiterate andarrogant lady and she leaked good manner. She is said to have abused the petitioner-appellant without any reasonable cause in presence of his guest, relatives and friends. She even assaulted the petitioners cousins wife and other elderly members of his family and thereby humiliated the petitioner- appellant. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 stayed in her matrimonial house for a couple of years and thereafter went to her fathers place without the consent of the petitioner-appellant and without any reasonable cause. Thereafter the petitioner alone came to Ranch! to work in H.E.C. The petitioner-appellant came to know from reliable sources that respondent No. 1 was having illicit relationship with the respondent No. 2. In February 1979 respondent No. 1 left the petitioner-appellants house without any reasonable cause and without the consent of the petitioner and went with respondent No. 2 to live in other persons house. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 did not return to live with the petitioner-appellant thereafter and, thus, she has deserted the petitioner-appellant. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 is living as concubine of respondent No. 2 Radhey Shyam Singh.

3. On the other hand, respondent No. 1-wlfe as well as respondent No. 2 appeared and denied allegation levelled in the plaint against them. Respondent No. 1 has denied that she has ever misbehaved or abused or used abusive language to the petitioner or any member of his family; rather the fact is otherwise, as this petitioner-appellant has kept a concubine, namely. Manju Sinha and that is why, he does not want to keep her and neglect her and throw mud on her character. She has further alleged that when a son was born to her, the appellant-petitioner pressurized her to bring a sum of Rs. 10.000/- from her naihar. She has denied of having any Illicit relationship with respondent No. 2 Radhey Shyam Singh; rather the fact is that the respondent No. 1 had filed a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner- appellant for grant of maintenance and the Court was pleased to allow Rs. 500/- per month as amount of maintenance to her. Other respondent namely Radhey Shyam Singh also appeared and denied allegation.

4. On the pleadings of the parties. learned Court below framed following issues for determination in the suit.

I. Is the case framed maintainable?

II. Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of action?

III. Whether the Court has got jurisdiction to decide the case?

IV. Whether the respondent is guilty of cruelty?

V. Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the company of the petitioner without any reasonable cause?

VI, Whether the respondent is living In adultery with respondent No. 2?

VII. Whether the petitioner Is entitled to a decree for the dissolution of his marriage with the respondent?

VI