JUDGMENT S. C. Mookherji, J. 1. This is a husband's appeal from the judgment of Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Dhanbad, dismissing his petition for dissolution of his marriage with his wife Smt. Bina Devi @ Smt. Urmila Devi, under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. There is no controversy that the parties were married to each other on 5.2.1972 at village Jagdishpur within Tajpur Police Station, in the district of Samastipur. A decree for dissolution of the marriage was sought for on the grounds (a) that opposite party no. 1 Smt. Bina Devi (wife) has been living in adultery with opposite party no 2 Sharan Kumar Ishwar, the younger brother of the appellant (b) that opposite party no. 1 has deserted him since 1979 and (c) that she treated the appellant husband with cruelty. 3. The case of the appellant is that after he obtained the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from Polytechnic, Purnea, he got an employment in a private firm M/s Techmecho in Bokaro Steel City and thereafter, in July, 1979 he was absorbed in Bokaro Steel Plant. The gauna (second marriage) of the appellant was performed on 14.12.1978 and thereafter his wife respondent-opposite party no. 1 along with his younger brother respondent-opposite party no. 2 came to live with him at Bokaro and there stayed there till 12.3.1979. It is further alleged that while-at Bokaro. She picked up intimacy with his younger brother, but in the initial stage he did not attach much significance to it as he was under an impression that, there existed sweet relationship of Dewar (husband's brother) and Bhabhi. In due course, the appellant noticed that his wife grown cold to him and at the same time developed warm feelings towards her Dewar i.e. respondent opposite party no 2. His wife insisted on him that she would go to village Gudhma, in the district of Samastipur, the parental place of the appellant to look after her old father-in-law and the family property. The appellant actually wanted to send his younger brother, respondent/opposite party no. 2 to his native place but on 12.3.1979 without his consent, of her own accord. She left Bokaro with opposite party no. 2 and thereafter, she never came back to the appellant’s place. 4. Further, it is alleged that at Gudhama opposite party no. The appellant actually wanted to send his younger brother, respondent/opposite party no. 2 to his native place but on 12.3.1979 without his consent, of her own accord. She left Bokaro with opposite party no. 2 and thereafter, she never came back to the appellant’s place. 4. Further, it is alleged that at Gudhama opposite party no. 1 and his younger brother became reckless and was having adulterous connection with the later, which even did not escape notice of his father. The appellant tried to mend the ways of his wife but could not succeed in his attempt. His wife was very cruel and harsh to him. The appellant waited for a long time with the hope that his wife and opposite party no. 2 would mend their ways, at least, for fear of the society, but all in vain. When the appellant was convinced that his wife and younger brother (Opposite party nos.1 and 2) were quite incorrigible and there was no possibility of any reconciliation with her, he brought the present suit. 5. The petition was contested by the opposite-party-respondent Smt. Bina Devi @ Urmila Devi, who pleaded that after the marriage, the appellant used to come to her parental house in village Jagdishpur" and till 1979 the relationship between the two was good. But 'after her husband got a job in Bokaro Steel City in July, 1979 his attitude was completely changed and he became greedy and demanded for further dowry of Rs. 15000/- from her parents to purchase a scooter. Her father being a poor school teacher, was not in a position to give such a huge amount and this cause so much annoyance to her husband, that he went to the extent of threatening her with dire consequences and also held out threats that he would malign her in a panchayati in December, 1982 before Mukhia and other respectable persons of village Gudhama. 6. Further, it is said that after her Gauna, she went to Gudhama on 14.12.1978. She has emphatically denied the allegation of her husband that she had been to Bokaro after gauna along with opposite party no. 2. According to her, there was a rumour that her husband was interested to marry the daughter of an Engineer Bishwanath Tiwari, who had offered a heavy dowry and that with that end in view, he wanted to get rid of her. 2. According to her, there was a rumour that her husband was interested to marry the daughter of an Engineer Bishwanath Tiwari, who had offered a heavy dowry and that with that end in view, he wanted to get rid of her. She has denied the charge of adultery levelled against her and has further stated that her relationship with opposite party no. 2 was that of a Dewar and Bhabhi and nothing beyond that, Further, it has been said that she was willing to live with her husband, but he in order to marry another girl, wants to leave her by making false allegations. The jurisdiction of Dhanbad Court to try the petition for divorce has also been challenged on the ground that the suit would lie only in the court of District Judge, at Samastipur. 7. The trial court holding that adultery is proved, decided the issue against the petitioner appellant. He also held that the appellant has failed to prove to the allegations of desertion and cruelty against the respondents no. 1 and that the District Judge's Court at Samastipur has only jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The petition having been dismissed on the aforesaid grounds, the husband has come in appeal to this court. 8. The following points arise for consideration : (1) Whether the District Court at Dhanbad was the proper forum to institute the suit? (2) Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for divorce on the grounds or any of the ground as claimed? Point No 1:- In order to invest the Samastipur Court with jurisdiction, the respondent wife averred in paragraphs 19 and 20 her written statement that she had never gone to Bokaro after her Gauna and that she cohabited with appellant in her naihar and sasural several times (both in the district of Samastipur). It has also been asserted that in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction court at Dhanbad, incorrect allegations have been made that she had gone to Bokaro. According to her, the District Judge’s Court of Samastipur alone has jurisdiction to decide the matrimonial issues arising between the parties. 10. It has also been asserted that in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction court at Dhanbad, incorrect allegations have been made that she had gone to Bokaro. According to her, the District Judge’s Court of Samastipur alone has jurisdiction to decide the matrimonial issues arising between the parties. 10. On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that the evidence led in this case has conclusively proved that after the gauna, the respondent had come to Bokaro, the place of employment of the appellant and lived there for about three months and thereafter, voluntarily without obtaining any consent from her husband left for Gudhama with his younger brother and since then she never returned to his place which clearly shows, she had last resided with her husband at Bokaro and therefore the District Judge’s Court at Dhanbad had only jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 11. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act says about the court to which the petition shall be presented. Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction – (i) the marriage was solemnized, or (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition resides, or (iii) parties to the marriage last resided to gether etc. In the instant case, according to the appellant they last resided at Bokaro, whereas, the respondent asserts that she had never gone to Bokaro even after her second marriage (Gauna). Therefore, the crucial point that arises for consideration is where the party last resided. The trial court has observed that the word 'last' resided would refer to the place where there is something stable or permanent about the residence and according to him, on the evidence adduced by the parties, the allegation of desertion by the respondent was not complete at Bokaro where she was said to have resided. The court below has further held that the evidence has shown that the appellant had met the respondent at Gudhama and "persuaded her to live well and mend her ways and so the place where the couple last resided can be said to be Gudhama and not Bokaro" and therefore, the Samastipur District Court has got only jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly decided this point. 12. 12. The word 'last' resided together had therefore, has to be closely scrutinised to find out as to where the couple actually "last resided” together as the other two conditions laid down in Section 19 in this regard are of no importance in view of the direct assertion of the appellant. Therefore, in order to confer jurisdiction to a court, in the instant case, the appellant "must prove that the parties resided or last resided together as husband and wife at a particular place i.e. Bokaro, in the district of Dhanbad. There is no dispute about it that after marriage the respondent-wife continued in her parental place where the appellant used to visit her from time to time. There is also no dispute that on 14.12.1978 their 'gauna' was performed. It is also not in dispute that the appellant after completing his studies, got an ordinary employment in a private firm, at Bokaro where he worked for some time and then, got another job in Bokaro Steel Plant. Therefore, the place of employment of the appellant was at Bokaro and in fact there is no controversy that still he is continuing on the same job at Bokaro. In the circumstances, there cannot be any dispute or controversy that the appellant has to live at Bokaro where he is employed. It is also an admitted position that the appellant had been residing in the out house of an Engineer posted at Bokaro (D.W. 6). Now, the appellant's claim is that after her Gauna in the year 1978, she came down to Bokaro to live with him along with his younger brother. 13. The word "last resided" therefore, had to be given a special meaning in connection' with the relationship of the wife and husband. On behalf of the parties, in connection with the interpretation of the words ‘resided’ and last resided together, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1521, A.I.R. 1964 Mysore 67 and A.I.R. 1967 Kerala 1 have been cited. These cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The decisions show that a casual visit or temporary visit with an intention other than to reside would not confer a jurisdiction under section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act to entertain the petition. The question that has now to be considered is that whether the respondent no. These cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The decisions show that a casual visit or temporary visit with an intention other than to reside would not confer a jurisdiction under section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act to entertain the petition. The question that has now to be considered is that whether the respondent no. 1 had gone to appellant's place at Bokaro after her gauna with the intention of residing there as husband and wife and had last resided there. The parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. In this connection, besides the deposing appellant (P.W. 4) his father (P.W. 3), P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been examined. P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were residing at Bokaro, have stated that the appellant used to live in a labour but and towards the end of 1978 they had seen the respondent there. The other two witnesses as indicated above are father and son i.e. the appellant and his father. They have stated that after gauna the respondent had gone to Bokaro and lived there for three months. There was nothing unusual on the part of the respondent to go to Bokaro at her husband's place, who was employed there to start her marital home after her gauna. But this has been denied by the respondent and in support of that oral evidence has only been led. Three witnesses have been examined of whom D.W. 3 is the wife of respondent opposite party no. 2 with whom it is alleged that respondent-opposite party Bina Devi was having adulterous relationship. The rest i.e. D.Ws. 1 and 2 are residents of village Gudhama. D.W. 4 father of respondent and D.W. 5 is the respondent herself. All these three witnesses have stated that she had never been to Bokaro. But her this stand has been completely negatived by her letter to D.W. 6 the letters written by Sharda to her and the statement of her witnesses D.W. 6 in his cross-examination coupled with other facts and circumstances to which I am presently coming. There is a direct allegation by respondent no. 1 against the appellant that he had picked up intimacy with an unmarried daughter of D.W. 6 named Sharda and he was interested to marry her. There is a direct allegation by respondent no. 1 against the appellant that he had picked up intimacy with an unmarried daughter of D.W. 6 named Sharda and he was interested to marry her. Some letters (Marked Z and Z/l for identification) written by that girl to the respondent-wife and a letter (Ext.1) written by her (respondent no.1) to her (Sharda's) father are on record. A plain reading of her letter (Ext. 1) addressed to D.W. 6 directly shows that she had been to Bokaro and had tried to give some explanations to D.W. 6 about her departure from that place. Some other matters had also been mentioned with which we are not concerned at this stage. This letter gives a conclusive prove of the fact that she had gone to Bokaro and later on left that place. The relevant portions of the letter may be mentioned here. "Ham Manti Hon Ki Bokaro Se Yahan Aa gai Tabse Unko Isi Khatir Zahar Ho Gaya Hai......Magar Vahan Nahin Ja Sakti Hon. Ham Koi Paraya purush Ke Sath Ghar Chhor Kar Bahar Nahin Bhag Gai Hon'" This is also supported by the fact that she being a lady of a remote village in the district of Samastipur is not expected to know a person of Bokaro unless she had occasions to know that gentleman (D.W. 6) by coming in his contact. D.W. 6 is an Engineer and be is also posted at Bokaro. As indicated the appellant used to reside in a portion of his house. There is also proved by her letter (Ext. 1) wherein she has clearly stated that "Mere patiji Deyal Kumar Ishwar Apke Bhara Me Rahte Hain." It is, therefore, obvious that while at Bakaro. She came in contact with D.W. 6, who is the landlord of her husband and after she came to Gudhama. She wrote four letters to him (as it appears from Ext. 1), and one of them is Ext. 1. Then again, two letters are said to have been written by Sharda, daughter of D.W. 6 to respondent no. 1 (Marked Z and Z/1 for identification). She has also accepted this in her evidence (Para 3). We are not very much concerned with the contents of those letters at this stage but those letters at least give a dear impression that Sharda was very much known to her. In other words, both respondent no. 1 (Marked Z and Z/1 for identification). She has also accepted this in her evidence (Para 3). We are not very much concerned with the contents of those letters at this stage but those letters at least give a dear impression that Sharda was very much known to her. In other words, both respondent no. 1 and Sharda are quite known to each other and the relationship was cordial. She (respondent-opposite party no.1) has tried in her evidence to conceal the fact that she had not seen her, but this has to be rejected as no person can write such letters unless the person addressed to was well known to her. Leaving aside these letters, at least the letter (Ext. 1) addressed to Sharda's father (D.W. 6) conclusively proved that she had gone to Bokaro and remained there, for some times. The evidence is that she was there for about three months and thereafter, she went away to village Gudhama. Even her own witness D.W. 6 in his cross examination has said that he had seen the respondent once at Bokaro in January, 1979. The relevant portion of his evidence is as follows ;- ''Bokaro Me bina Devi Ke Dekhne Ke Mauqua Mujhe Ek Bar Mila Tha Janwari 1979 Ka Koi Rawiwar Tha Jab Mai Unhen Dekha Tha". It is the case of the appellant that soon after her gauna on 14.12.78, she had come to Bokaro. Her father-in-law says that she had gone to Bokaro on.16.12.78. Therefore, the statement of D.W. 6, that he had seen her in January, 1979 supports the appellant. Thus, all these go to show that she had gone to her husband place at Bokaro in 1978 December and remained there for some months. There is no case that thereafter, the parties resided at any other place. Thus, it can be safely deduced that the respondent came to Bokaro with the intention to reside with the appellate as his wife and after having resided there for three months left that place and thereafter, she never visited that place again. It has been well proved that the parties last resided at Bokaro within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad District Court. In that view of the matter, the finding of the court below that Samastipur Court had only jurisdiction to try the case must be held to be wrong and is accordingly set aside. 14. It has been well proved that the parties last resided at Bokaro within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad District Court. In that view of the matter, the finding of the court below that Samastipur Court had only jurisdiction to try the case must be held to be wrong and is accordingly set aside. 14. Point No.2 :- The second and the important point that arises for consideration is; whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for divorce on any of the grounds taken in his plaint. Three grounds have been taken to seek a decree for divorce:- (i) Adultery (ii) Cruelty and (iii) Desertion. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act lays down the grounds on which a decree for dissolution of marriage can be sought. i.e. (i) has after the solemnization of the marriage had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (i-a) has after the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (i-b) has, deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or........." In the instant case, all the aforesaid three grounds were taken by the appellant-petitioner for dissolving the marriage. 15. The first and the main ground that has been taken is that his wife had been living in adultery with his younger brother. It may be mentioned here after the amendment of the Act even one act of adultery is sufficient for dissolution of the marriage. The person with whom she was said to have been associated in adultery is the younger brother of the appellant and he has not come to contest the suit. The appellant petitioner has adduced evidence that intimacy between two grew up after they came down to Bokaro to reside with him. In this connection, the evidence of the appellant is that in the initial stage; though he noticed some sort of unusual relationship between two yet, at that time he did not attach very much importance to this as the relationship of Bhabhi and Dewar existed between two. It is known to all that in our society this relationship is 'a sweet one and normally, Bhabhi and Dewar (unless there is very much difference in age) are just like friends. It is known to all that in our society this relationship is 'a sweet one and normally, Bhabhi and Dewar (unless there is very much difference in age) are just like friends. The appellant's version is that his suspicion afterward was strengthened when without his consent his wife suddenly left for his native place along with respondent. opposite party no. 2 i.e. his younger brother and their adulterous relationship was confirmed by his father i.e. P.W. 3. This old man, aged about 63 years has deposed that "after gauna, Bina went to Bokaro and remained there for three months and then came to his village along with his son Saran Kumar Ishwar and when he questioned her about her arrival, she simply gave out that as she was not feeling mentally happy there she came to Gudhama. Further, the evidence of this person is that at Gudhama he noticed physical relationship between the two. He tried to impress upon them not to indulge in such relationship but it had no effect. Further, he has stated that about a month after appellant Dayal came to village who gave out that without obtaining his permission she had come. His son also tried to persue his wife to mend her ways, but that had also produced no effect. According to this, witness they i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2 even did not bother about him. It is thus, evident from the evidence of this witness that they were so reckless in their adulterous relationship that did not even hesitate to indulge in their acts in presence of an elderly person, who is none else, than the father of one of them and father-in-law of the other. It has also come in his cross-examination that respondent no. 1 used to share the bed of his youngest son in a side room, At one stage witness has said that he had seen them in compromising position which however, he corrected, by saying that he had seen them talking in such a manner in a room in the same bed which was a pointer to the fact that there was questionable relationship between two and he was also not in a position to resist it as in that event they might have stopped his 'khana pina' (food). Now, I turn to the evidence led on behalf of respondents. Now, I turn to the evidence led on behalf of respondents. Besides the respondent herself, four more witnesses i.e. her father and gotini i.e. wife or the younger brother of the appellant and two villagers of Godhama have been examined to say that entire allegation, that is the allegation of adultery, against the respondent opposite party no.1 is not correct and that she bears a good character. On the contrary, a case has sought to be made out that the appellant used to demand dowry from the respondent for a scooter and in that connection there was a panchaiyati in which the appellant refused to accept the advice of the panches. Further it has been stated that the appellant had developed intimacy with Sharda, daughter of D.W. 6 and wanted to marry her after taking huge dowry money. In substance their evidence is that the appellant has set up a false case. 16. In view of the evidence adduced by the parties. It has to be seen whether the allegation of adultery has been proved or not. Adultery is such an Act which normally can not be proved by direct evidence. As a matter of fact, it is never necessary to prove adultery or even a single act of adultery by direct evidence. Such evidence is generally discredited when it is proved. Adultery has to be inferred from circumstances which exclude any presumption of innocence in favour of the persons against whom it is alleged. (See A.I.R. 1962 Punjab 144). 17. The learned counsel for the respondent was very much critical about the evidence adduced on this point by the appellant and has submitted that mere saying that the respondent-opposite party was living in adultery with respondent-opposite party no. 2 is not sufficient unless it is proved by cogent evidence. It is true that a mere allegation is not sufficient to establish this charge unless there are other facts and circumstances. In the instant case, it is the specific case of the appellant that his wife actually picked up intimacy with his brother after she came down to Bokaro to live with him. His brother who is a party to this proceeding has not come to deny the aforesaid allegation and instead, his wife (D.W. 3) has been sent to say that they have good relationship and the allegation against her husband is incorrect. His brother who is a party to this proceeding has not come to deny the aforesaid allegation and instead, his wife (D.W. 3) has been sent to say that they have good relationship and the allegation against her husband is incorrect. I think that in face of the allegation of the present nature, the person against whom the same is alleged, should have ordinarily come to deny which has not been done. In our society, it is not unusual on the part of the husband, in the event of any trouble, to force his wife to speak something in his favour to get rid of that problem. A wife is not always expected to know about all the deeds or misdeeds of her husband. The person against whom any charge is levelled is the best person to deny or affirm it. In the instant case, it was all the more necessary as it has come in the evidence of P.W. 4, father of the appellant that mostly, his 2nd daughter-in-law i.e. D.W. 3 resides at her parents place. Therefore, she may not be aware of many things. Thus, the evidence of the wife of opposite party no. 2 can not be said to be conclusive to negative the case of the appellant on the point of adultery as has been repeatedly sought to be made out in course of argument. It has already been pointed out while dealing with the question of jurisdiction matter that the respondent opposite party no. 1 had gone to Bokaro along with her Dewar. She (respondent), however, had tried to suppress the fact which speaks much against her. As a matter of fact, her letter to D.W. 6 (Ext. 1) directly shows that she had run away from that place with a known person, who in the circumstances of the case could not be any other person than her Dewar i.e. respondent no. 2. The letter further indicates that she had some serious grievances and at one stage she asserted that she would prefer live (sic) like a maid servant to earn her livelihood and at other stage she had mentioned that she has no courage to write a letter to her husband and that she is taking courage to write a letter to him. Further, in that letter a request was made to the addressee i.e. D.W. 6 to intervene in their problem. Further, in that letter a request was made to the addressee i.e. D.W. 6 to intervene in their problem. There is no case that she was turned out by her husband nor any case is there that she was forced to leave that place on account of the tortures or cruel acts of her husband. On the contrary, she tried her level best to suppress the fact that she had not gone to Bokaro at any point of time which has been falsified by the facts and circumstances discussed above. Then naturally the point that would arise for consideration as to why she had left that place and what was the necessity to write a letter to her husband's landlord with an attempt to explain certain events and acts of hers. 18. The letters referred to above coupled with the oral evidence, proved beyond doubt that respondent-opposite party no. 1 was at Bokaro for sometimes where her husband is in service. This fact has obviously been suppressed apparently, for two reasons, firstly to oust jurisdiction of the court of Dhanbad and secondly to demolish all the allegations against her that she had actually picked up intimacy with her Dewar at Bokaro leading to an adulterous relationship between the two and that some months after, she ran away from that place along with respondent no. 2 to her father-in-law's place without the consent of her husband and thereafter, never returned to her husbands place even after persuation. If she had never gone to Bokaro as has been sought to be made out, there was no necessity/occasion on her part to write a letter to D.W. 6. This is strengthened by another letter Ext. A written by D.W. 6 to the father of respondent/opposite party no. 1 i.e. the father-in-law of the appellant in which he has showed his annoyance for vexing him of and on by his family members in their personal matters asking him to intervene in those problems. All these go to show that D.W. 6 was very much known to them and respondent-opposite party no. 1 had come to Bokaro with her Dewar where their intimacy grew up. 19. All these go to show that D.W. 6 was very much known to them and respondent-opposite party no. 1 had come to Bokaro with her Dewar where their intimacy grew up. 19. If the story that she had come to Bokaro is accepted as it should be, in view of the evidence discussed above, it necessarily follows that she came down to Gudhama, her father-in-laws place, with her Dewar to live there so that their adulterous relationship may continue uninterrupted and without any hindrance from her husband. The evidence of her father-in-law has already been referred to. It dose not stand to a reason why this old man would say against the character of his other son i.e. respondent-opposite party no.2 and daughter-in-law unless there is truth in it. This witness after having noticed questionable relationship between his son and daughter-in-law informed about it to the appellant and On receipt of that the later came down to Gudhama to persuade his wife to mend her ways and to accompany him to Bokaro, but his attempt was frustrated. If, she was leading a life of true house wife, she would not have refused to accompany her husband to Bokaro where he was well placed in his life to start her marital home. The very fact that she refused to accompany her husband is an additional circumstances to show that she was not willing to live with her husband, in view of the fact, that she was deeply involved in adulterous connection with her Dewar. An attempt has been made that on account of non-payment of Rs. 15000/- to the appellant by her father for purchasing a scooter, the present case was filed to get rid of her and to have a smooth way to take a second wife i.e. Sharda, the daughter of D.W. 6. Further, it is said that there was a Panchayati also on that issue. It is very significant to note that in the so called Panchayati, respondent-opposite party no. 2, (with whom respondent no. 1 was said to have adulterous relationship) along with her father had taken part (vide evidence of D.W. 2 paragraph 1). It looks most unnatural that a brother would convene or take part in a panchayati against his other brother unless he was very much interested in his wife for some reason. 2, (with whom respondent no. 1 was said to have adulterous relationship) along with her father had taken part (vide evidence of D.W. 2 paragraph 1). It looks most unnatural that a brother would convene or take part in a panchayati against his other brother unless he was very much interested in his wife for some reason. This statement of D.W. 2 thus instead of helping the respondents supports the case of the appellant. That apart, the main panch before whom the so called complaint was lodged has not come to support it. It is, therefore, obvious that this story has been purposely set up by way of defence. 20. Regarding the plea that her husband wanted to marry with Sharda, there is no substance in it in view of the evidence of D.W. 6 father of Sharda and two letters allegedly written by Sharda to respondent no. 1. The contents of these letters show that she used to respect her (respondent) and that she wanted her to be happy in life. If Sharda bad any intimacy/love affairs with appellant, she at least would not have sent the letters to a legally married wife of her lover. Then again, the father of the girl as D.W. 6 has emphatically denied the aforesaid allegations. It is thus obvious that this allegation has been purposely set up by the respondent opposite party no.1 to cover up the sins committed by her. Thus, on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances, it is well established that allegation of adultery against respondent-opposite party no.1 with respondent-opposite party no. 2 has been fully established. 21. As regards the allegation of cruelty meeted out to the appellant by respondent-opposite party, there appears much substance in it. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court page 1534) has laid down what amounts to cruelty. The principles laid down in the said decision appear to have been misconstrued by the trial court. In the instant case, it has already been held that opposite party-respondent no. 1 had indulged in acts of adultery with respondent no. 2. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court page 1534) has laid down what amounts to cruelty. The principles laid down in the said decision appear to have been misconstrued by the trial court. In the instant case, it has already been held that opposite party-respondent no. 1 had indulged in acts of adultery with respondent no. 2. It has also been found that 'against the wishes of her husband she ran away to village Gudhama with her Dewar, obviously to continue her adulterous relationship with him (Resp No.2) which as indicated has been fully supported by the evidence of her father-in- law and other facts and circumstances discussed. It has also been pointed out that the appellant about a month after went to his native place, in order to persue his wife to come back to Bokaro but all in vain. In the light of aforesaid evidence, it can safely be said that the conduct of respondent-opposite party no. 1 Bina Devi @ Urmila Devi of indulging in love affairs with per Dewar and going to the length of running away from her own house against the wishes of her husband is sufficient to give rise to an apprehension that a. person like the appellant would certainly be mentally hurt and it would be difficult for a husband to tolerate that his wife would indulge in cohabitation with his own brother openly. This conduct would naturally cause mental disturbances resulting in harm or injury to the appellant. In the circumstances, the conduct of opposite party-respondent no. 1 will certainly have an impact on the mental peace of her husband i.e. the appellant which conduct squarely falls within the expression “cruelty” as used in Section 13(1) (ia) of the Act. 22. The allegation of the appellant that his wife had deserted him has also been conclusively proved by the evidence already referred to above. It is well proved that after her gauna on 14.12.78 she came to Bokaro and three month after she left for Gudhama and thereafter, she did not come to appellant’s place at any point of time. Desertion is abandonment of one spouse by another without good cause. It is well proved that after her gauna on 14.12.78 she came to Bokaro and three month after she left for Gudhama and thereafter, she did not come to appellant’s place at any point of time. Desertion is abandonment of one spouse by another without good cause. The learned Judge has negatived this allegation of the appellant solely on the basis of the evidence of the respondent-opposite party no.1 (D.W.5) that she has given out in court that she is ready to live with her husband subject to the condition that her life should be protected while in the company of her husband. This statement alone should not have been taken into consideration while disposing of this aspect of the case. Over all situation, facts, circumstances and evidences should have been thoroughly scrutinised before arriving at a conclusion whether there was desertion or not. The Supreme Court in a decision reported in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 459 has observed that: "Desertion within the meaning of section 10(1) (a) of the Act-read with the Explanation docs not imply only a separate residence and separate living. It is also necessary that there must be a determination to put an end to marital relation and cohabitation. Without animus deserendi there can be no longer desertion within the meaning of section 10(1) (a)." In the instant case, it has already been held that while at Bokaro. Respondent-opposite party no.1 developed intimacy with respondent-opposite party no. 2 and was having adulterous connection with him and three months after which comes to March, 1979, she left that place with opposite party no.2 for village Gudhama and that she also refused to come to her husband’s place, when persuaded by the later and at last, the suit was filed on 23.8.1983 in the court of District Judge, Dhanbad. In the circumstances, the conduct of respondent-opposite party no.1 directly proves that she had virtually deserted her husband some time in the month of March, 1979 and thereafter, she never returned to Bokaro at her husband's place to restart her marital relation and cohabitation and this conduct of respondent no.1, Bina Devi comes within the meaning of "Desertion. 23. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal is, therefore, accordingly allowed. 23. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal is, therefore, accordingly allowed. The judgment passed by the lower court is set aside. A decree for dissolution of marriage is awarded in favour of the appellant-petitioner of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs in this court.