( 1 ) A decree nisi for dissclution of marriage obtamed by the Petrwife under S. 10 of the, Indian Divorce, Act, comes up before us for confirmation under S. 17,of the said Act. ( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way: The petitioner was married to respondent on 23-6-1961. Th married life did not turn out to be happy. it locked as though, they married only to quarrel. Not a day passed with out abuse from the respondent. The petitioner, however, thought that that would be a passing phase and the barun of a cnild may bring happiness to the family. She gave birth to a child on 10-6-1962. It was in her parents house. But unfortunately, the respondent did not even once turn up to look at the face off his child. In spite of this indifference, tine petitioner along with the child came back and joined her husoand somewhere in the begining of 1963. This time also she did not recerve any better treatment. After a couple of months, she was driven away with the child only to find solace with her parents. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was anxious to find out the reason for the hostile attitude of her husband. She succeeded in her mission on 18-7-1967 on which day, she found her husband in the company of one Kanthamani in the latter's residence. On the same day, there was a panchayat in which, shenmugam PW. 2 and shivalingam P. W,4 were present. The Panchas discussed about the, behaviour of the respondent and came to the conclusion that the respondent has committed adultery with the said Kanthamani. But they could not take any action either to mend his hostile attitude to wards the petitioner or to end his illegitimate collection with Kanthamani. ( 4 ) EVIDENTLY, the respondent was not content with his concubine. He filed Mis. Case 126 of 1966 against the petitioner, in the Court of the dist. Judge, Bangalore praying for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, therein, he complained that the petitioner without reasonable excuse has deserted him. The petitioner resisted the said action, in which twq specific questions came up for consideration: (1) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty; and (2) Whether he had committed adultery with the said Kanthamani. Both those questions were answered in favour of the petitioner and Accordingly the learned Dist. The petitioner resisted the said action, in which twq specific questions came up for consideration: (1) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty; and (2) Whether he had committed adultery with the said Kanthamani. Both those questions were answered in favour of the petitioner and Accordingly the learned Dist. Judge passed an order dt. 19-11-1970 dismissing the application of the respondent. The said order became final since it was not challenged in any appeal. ( 5 ) THEN it was the wife's turn to present a, petition for dissolution of her marriage, out of which the present proceedings have arisen. In her petition dt. 28-10-1971 she prayed for a decree on the ground that her husband has committed adultery and also treated her with cruelty. In support of her case, the order in MC. 126 of 1966 was produced along with copies of the proceedings of the psnchayat. She has examined herself along with four other witnesses. From the side of respondent, there is no other witness except that of himself. The learned Judge, on considering the evidence made a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage, and it is now before, us for confirmation. ( 6 ) ON the question of adultery committed by the respondent with kanthamani, there is enough evidence. The respondent's illegitimate intimacy with Kanthamani on 18-7-1967 was spoken to by PW. 2, Shanmugam pw3, Velayudhan and PW. 4 Shivalingam. Their evidence is corroborated by the testimony of the petitioner. We have also, before us, the findings recorded in MC. 126 of 1966 stating that the respondent has committed adultery with Kanthamani and treated the petitioner with cruelty. These findings are relevant, though they do not operate as res judicata. This evidence is sufficient to hold that the respondent has committed adultery with Kanthamani and also treated the petitioner with such cruelty, as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et toro, an expression 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. Besides, there is enough proof of desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards on the part of the respondent. Ever since the child was born in 1969, the respondent was not looking after the petitioner or child. . The petitioner is still residing in her parents' house. Besides, there is enough proof of desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards on the part of the respondent. Ever since the child was born in 1969, the respondent was not looking after the petitioner or child. . The petitioner is still residing in her parents' house. She filed the petition for dissolution of her marriage in 1971. The cruelty coupled with that desertion also, entitles her to seek a decree,. ( 7 ) ON the facts and circumstances of the case, we are also, satisfied that there was no collusion between the parties in filing the petition for dissolution of their marriage, ( 8 ) THE learned Dist. Judge has also made an order directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 150 per month by way of permanent alimony. While making that order, he appears to have ignored, the provisions of S. 37 of the Act which provides that "the Dist. Judge may, on the confirmation of any decree of his declaring a marriage to be dissolved, or a decree of judicial separation obtained by the wife, order the husband to secure to the wife such annual sum of money having regard to, her fortune and to the ability of the husband". In that view, the direction regarding the alimony to the petitioner, made by the Dist, Judge must be, held to be premature. That was also the view taken by the Calcutta High court in Klein v. Klein, AIR 1954 Cal. 406 . ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we accept the reference and confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, without making any order as to costs. --- *** --- .