Short Note : The allegations of the petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife was that she has neglected to carryon her duties towards her husband as wife and is behaving like a mad woman with the result that due to her conduct and actions it has become impossible for him to live with her and, thus, he is being treated with cruelty. It was further vaguely alleged that the petitioner has been deserted by his wife-respondent for more than three years. 2. The respondent-wife in her written statement, controverted and denied all the allegations of the petitioner-husband and alleged that it was her husband who treated her with cruelty subjected to physical and mental tortures and compelled her to live separately by driving her out from the marital house though she was always ready and willing to live with the petitioner as his wife. She denied that she was insane or that her behaviour was such which had made the life of the petitioner miserable, entitling him to get a decree of divorce on that ground. 3. The learned trial Judge, on a careful scrutiny and appreciation of the evidence, found that the respondent-wife is not mad; that she has always been ready and wining to live with the petitioner and discharge her duties as wife; that she has never neglected or treated the petitioner with cruelty; that it was the petitioner who beat her and ill-treated her and drove her away; that it is the petitioner who is not interested in keeping her with him as his wife and, as no ground for divorce was made out, it dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. Held : In face of this evidence, if the husband does physical violence to his wife she has every right to resent it and is justified in withdrawing herself from the society of her husband. Similarly, the wife entertaining fear from the conduct of the husband that it is unsafe for her to live with him, she has reasonable excuse for withdrawing from his society though, in the present case, the respondent has tried to assert that she is interested in continuing the marital relations. Similarly, the wife entertaining fear from the conduct of the husband that it is unsafe for her to live with him, she has reasonable excuse for withdrawing from his society though, in the present case, the respondent has tried to assert that she is interested in continuing the marital relations. When a husband drives away his wife due to which she is compelled to stay with her parents, it does not amount to desertion on the part of the wife, more so, when she is willing to come back and the husband is not accepting her. 4. In a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that the respondent is incurably of unsound mind, it is for the petitioner to establish that the respondent is of unsound mind which cannot be cured. The expression "incurably of unsound mind" cannot be so widely interpreted as to cover feeble minded persons or persons of dull intellect who understand the nature and consequences of their acts and are therefore able to control themselves and their affairs and reactions in the natural way. 5. The nature of every person is not the same and, after marriage, one has to adjust with the temperament of the spouse. Simply because the husband or the wife has temperamental difference, will not by itself necessarily lead to the conclusion that the spouse is suffering from mental disorder. Eccentric behaviour does not always mean mental disorder or psychopathic disorder. 6. There is absolutely no evidence to conclude that there has been any desertion by the wife much less any desertion by her for a continuous period of not less than two years before the filing of the petition. Desertion means the intentional, permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without the other's consent and without a reasonable cause, which the petitioner has failed to prove in the' present case. Grievances made of normal incidents of married life do not constitute any cruelty. For instance, in a case where the wife is suffering from epilepsy, though it causes mental pain to the husband, it does not mean that she is treating him with cruelty. Thus, we are satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for divorce. 7. For instance, in a case where the wife is suffering from epilepsy, though it causes mental pain to the husband, it does not mean that she is treating him with cruelty. Thus, we are satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for divorce. 7. The petitioner has moved an interlocutory application No. 1460 dated 1-5-1978 in this Court under Order 41, rule 27, CPC, praying that in order to prove the ground of neglect, desertion and strange behaviour of the respondent like an insane person, he should be given an opportunity to lead additional evidence by examining the father of the respondent to prove a document executed by him in the presence of certain panchas of the village. However this application deserves to be rejected on the short ground that the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead any such evidence at such a late stage by invoking the provisions of Order 41, rule 27 CPC, which are not meant for that purpose. Besides, the proposed evidence which the petitioner-appellant now wants to adduce, will not in any may strengthen his case. Therefore, the interlocutory application is hereby rejected. Appeal dismissed.