( 1 ) THIS reference is under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation of a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner-wife with the respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was married to the respondent on 19-6-1963 at St. Theresa's Church HMT Colony, Bangalore City. After the marriage, they lived at one of the quarters allotted to the petitioner's father who was then employed at the Watch Factory at the, HMT Colony. On 4-4-1964, the petitioner gave birth to a male child. Thereafter they moved with the child to a rented premises at Chamarajapet, Bangalore City. There the trouble started for the petitioner. Her life became miserable due to the quixotic behaviour of the respondent who used to return home always fully drunk and beat the petitioner. Unable to bear this ill-treatment she returned to her parents house in October, 1966. The respondent perhaps felt happy and for more than three years upto April, 1970 he did not care to look at her or his child. Against this background, the petitioner was forced to file a petition under S. 10 of the Act praying for a decree for dissolution of her marriage primarily on the contention of ill-treatment and desertion and also on a vague allegation-that the Respt. was spending his money on some women not kpwn to her. ( 3 ) THE respondent did not contest the proceedings. The wife has examined herself as pw. 1 and has also, examined her mother as PW. 2. The learned Dist. Judge on considering this evidence, accepted the petitionar's case both in regard to cruelty and also desertion. Accordingly, he granted a decree nisi for dissolution of her marriage and referred the matter for confirmation and that is how the matter is now before us. ( 4 ) THOUGH both the parties remained unrepresented before, us, we had the assistance from Counsel Sri K. P. Ashok Kumar and Sri Venkatachala, who argued the matter at our reouest and we express our thanks to tham. ( 5 ) TURNING now to the merits of the case, it seems to us that the reference cannot be accepted. S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act sets out the grounds upon which the Court could dissolve a marriage. ( 5 ) TURNING now to the merits of the case, it seems to us that the reference cannot be accepted. S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act sets out the grounds upon which the Court could dissolve a marriage. One of the grounds on which a wife could ask for dissolution of her marriage is that her husband has committed adultery coupled with such creulty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mesa et toro. Other ground is adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, for two years or upwards. Reference in this context may be made to S. 22 of the act. It provides that no decree shall hereafter be made for a divorce mensa et toro, but the. husband or wife may obtain a decree of judicial separation, on the ground of adultery, or cruelty, or desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards and such decree shall haye the effect of a divorce a mensa et taro. The expression ' mensa et toro' is ordinarily used to describe the position of husband or wife whereunder it would become impossible or improper for them to meet at table or at bed, ( 6 ) FROM these provisions, it is clear that a wife cannot obtain a decree for dissolution of her marriage unless she proves that her husband has committed adultery coupled with cruelty, or adultery coupled with desertion. Mere cruelty or desertion, without proof of adultery, is no ground for the Court to grant a, decree for dissolution of marriage. Either of them, however, may form the basis for obtaining a decree for judical separation under Section 22. In the present case, all that has been proved against the respondent is, that he, has treated the petitioner with cruolty and desertion for 3 to 4 years. There is no evidence regarding the adultery committed by the respondent, much less any specific plea was taken in her pleadings. The vague allegations in the pleadings on the ouestion of adultery cannot form the basis for granting a decree for dissolution of the marriage. The learned dist. Judge was, entirely in error in dissolving the marriage. ( 7 ) BUT we do not think that it is necessary for us to remit the matter or to leave the parties again to further litigation to work out their rights. The learned dist. Judge was, entirely in error in dissolving the marriage. ( 7 ) BUT we do not think that it is necessary for us to remit the matter or to leave the parties again to further litigation to work out their rights. The evidence in the case in our opinion, is sufficient to hold that the respondent is guilty of having deserted his wife for about 4 years from 1966 to 1970. He without reasonable excuse has not locked after his wife and the child. The evidence of the petitioner on this ouestion remains unchallenged and it is fully corroborated by the evidence of her mother PW. 2. We are also satisfied that there was no collusion between the parties. The petitioner is therefore, entitled to a decree for judicial separation. ( 8 ) A case similar to the one before us, came up before a Spl. Bench of the Madras High Court in Ambujam Ammal v. M, R. Arumugham, AIR. 1966 Mad. 153 SB. The learned Judges, on considering the matter, set aside the decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage of the parties therein, and granted a decree for judicial separation. We think that that should be the proper relief in this case also. ( 9 ) IN the result, we decree the referred case only for judicial separation under S. 22 of the Act. The parties will bear their own costs. --- *** --- .