JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– Bhattacharyya, J.: this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge dated 27.5.1988 in matrimonial suit No. 149 of 1986, for dissolving the marriage. 2. This case is one of the inglorious examples as to how the life of the two spouses became strite torn only to cheer the blunt ego. We will discuss the facts for the sake of brevity which will illumine them. The sensitive facts are that a female child was born of the loins of the petitioner for the lawful wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent according to Hindu rites founded on negotiation. The father of the petitioner made a clean breast of the fact that the respondent, an employee of Garden Reach, would lodge in the marital home at Bangalpur to negotiate her office. With that end in view, the marriage was solemnized and the parties put up for some time in the marital home. But the marital peace suddenly took a worse turn by the indifferent attitude generated by the respondent who abandoned the marital home at Bangalpur and left for Shibpur without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. 3. The respondent wife gave out her inability to negotiate the office as it would tell on her health His all attempts to install her into marital home stood frustrated by her on the false pretext of leading an immoral life by the petitioner, who according to her, tried to kill her by administering poison, though the petitioner attended on her ill health. The marital misconduct of the respondent left a deep scar on the marital life. 4. The petitioner could not compromise with the illegal demand of his wife to put up separately after leaving the father and the brothers stricken with unemployment in lurch. She bade a good-bye to the marital home in the month of May 1983. 5. The letters that passed by and between the parties bore no fruit to them. The respondent is further guilty of matrimonial lapses when access to the female child was denied and her address kept concealed. 6. The petitioner sought for a divorce on mutual consent when it was blurted out by the respondent through her advocate of her unwillingness to put up together. The respondent is further guilty of matrimonial lapses when access to the female child was denied and her address kept concealed. 6. The petitioner sought for a divorce on mutual consent when it was blurted out by the respondent through her advocate of her unwillingness to put up together. Thereafter, the petitioner in absence of any other alternative had to rush to the Court for the desired objective. 7. The claim has been resisted by the respondent rejecting the allegations of her husband. The allegations, according to her, are self-contradictory. She was forced to agree to the marriage who had no pious intention to live at Bangalpur as the office was distantly situated. Apart from the above, during her marital life, she had to cook food for the entire members of her husband's family which was fairly big enough. It was intolerable for her. She could not bear the heavy household duties after her return from the office. Her husband was a man of loose moral, who tried to install strangers in the marital life. She never gave out that she would be killed by administering poison by the husband. The petitioner sought for abortion at the early stage of pregnancy which she did not agree. On the aid and advice of tier father-in-law, she did not meet him outside the office without denying performance of conjugal obligations. 8. Her loyalty and fidelity were absolute. But for the hostility harboured by her husband, the woe hung heavily on her. 9. On consideration of the materials on record, the learned Trial Court framed five issues upholding the claim of the petitioner by granting a decree of divorce when this appeal before this Court to stall the decree. 10. The learned Trial Court on consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty by refusing to perform the conjugal obligations and to live with the husband. There could be no desertion as talked about by her as there is no reasonable excuse to stay away from the marital home. The evidence disclosed had no mooring in fact and law. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree, since passed by the learned Trial Court without the proof of cruelty. There could be no desertion as talked about by her as there is no reasonable excuse to stay away from the marital home. The evidence disclosed had no mooring in fact and law. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree, since passed by the learned Trial Court without the proof of cruelty. The learned Counsel in founding the claim has studiously canvassed that the learned Trial Court has made a confusion of fact and law by the reason of his holding that the recitals in the W.S.-constitute evidence. The averments in the written statement cannot be treated as sacrosanct to pass a decree in favour of the respondent. 12. The learned Counsel for the respondent has refused the claim of the appellant on the ground that the matrimonial misconduct has been proved to the hilt and there could be no bar under the law to pass a decree for divorce which the learned Trial Court duly considered and, therefore, it granted the decree accordingly. To add strength, the learned Counsel for the respondent has seriously disputed that the allegations of pursuing of adulterous course of conduct and the respondent being a man of loose moral in absence of proof have created a serious injury on marital life which cannot be healed up or repaired. 13. Returning to examine the viability of the rival claim when I take a glimpse of the evidence, the factum of marriage based on negotiation did never till as the W.S. reveals that one Gopal Patra negotiated the marriage. The petitioner has laid a claim that marital home would be at Bangalpur wherefrom she would negotiate her office. It was settled at the very threshold of the marriage. The recitals in the W.S. let the cat out of the bag as the appellant gave a publicity that she was forced to agree to the marriage for Gopal. These recitals fetch much value in aid of relief of the respondent. The negotiation held in line with claim has been disputed by her being oblivious of the fact that the onus is upon her to prove about the unreality of such claim. Only Gopal can prove that who stayed back from the Court. His non-examination speaks a considerable volume against her case dwelling on negotiation. 14. The negotiation held in line with claim has been disputed by her being oblivious of the fact that the onus is upon her to prove about the unreality of such claim. Only Gopal can prove that who stayed back from the Court. His non-examination speaks a considerable volume against her case dwelling on negotiation. 14. Over and above, it is devoid of any logic that the husband respondent will live throughout with her wife at her Shibpur residence to the exclusion of marital home at Bangalpur. Shibpur can never become the marital home which has been thoroughly cultivated by the husband in his evidence. The husband respondent is throughout faithful in his evidence that it was settled, as already indicated above, that she would negotiate her of from Shibpur. There cannot be any bone of contention that civil litigation is decided on the basis of probabilities vis-a-vis the criminal litigation is decided on proof. In the context, the evidence probabilities that it is a distant claim that she will never reside at the marital home at Bangalpur even on occasion. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant is over-emphatic in his submission that recitals in her written statement cannot constitute any evidence. It is trite saying, if there is any variation between the proof and the pleading, the case of a party cannot achieve any success, since it is destructive for the case. In the instant case there is no nexus and her case becomes unwholesome. 16. The evidence is very sound and weighty that the wife made allegation about his leading on immoral life, where she did not spare even the sister-in-law. But, there is many a sleep between the cup and the lip. She could not prove by any evidence overt or covert that her husband was pursuing an adulterous course of conduct or he was leading an immoral life. She has assassinated the character of her husband in her written statement which is patently absent in her letters that passed by and between the two learned advocates of the rival parties which itself is an earlier blush to the case of the appellant wife. 17. There is no cleavage of opinion that allegation of immoral conduct in the written statement or the petition, as the case may be, if unfounded will generate an action for a party to secure relief on the Court of perpetration of cruelty. 17. There is no cleavage of opinion that allegation of immoral conduct in the written statement or the petition, as the case may be, if unfounded will generate an action for a party to secure relief on the Court of perpetration of cruelty. The immoral conduct or life pursued by him as alleged did not celebrate any success. The wife cannot avoid the payment of penalty in the marital life. 18. Further, it is manifest from the evidence of P. W. 1 and his father they tried to install her in the marital home which became abortive for the intolerable attitude and conduct indulged in by the wife. To avoid the marital home, the wife has adduced evidence that she was burdened with onerous domestic duties after strenuous journey from the office. After her return to the marital home at Bangalpur, she had to cook for the entire family. But this evidence melts thin in the air for the materials disclosed that she would return home at 10 p.m. and the circumstance is incompatible with her evidence that she had to cook food for the entire family. She was not maintaining any tolerable health at marital home is inconsistent in the facts and circumstances of the case as it was an allegation on the plain paper and nothing more. 19. Further, it is significant from the letters written by the husband exhibit-1 dated 3.1.1986, and exhibit-(b) dated 24.4.1986 demanding her return to marital home which was ignored by her. Instead, the wife spoke through her advocate, exhibit-A, and also other letters about her unwillingness to live at marital home. Undoubtedly, this is a cruelty as it stands out from her letters written through her advocate. Therefore, her claim that she did not refuse to stay at marital home runs counter to her letter. She has no respect for truth. 20. The learned Counsel for the appellant has made an emphatic claim that the petitioner is guilty of matrimonial misconduct as he sent an anonymous letter dated 25.9.1984 accusing her for leading an immoral life. There is no evidence on record that the husband was the architect of this letter. She has no respect for truth. 20. The learned Counsel for the appellant has made an emphatic claim that the petitioner is guilty of matrimonial misconduct as he sent an anonymous letter dated 25.9.1984 accusing her for leading an immoral life. There is no evidence on record that the husband was the architect of this letter. Besides, it is notorious from the evidence that this letter was written on 25.9.1984 and the learned advocate for the wife wrote letters to the learned advocate of the husband which was much latter in point of time where silence is maintained about the accusation made against her dated 25.9.1984. If the letter dated 25.9.1984 was received by her which was in earlier point of time, it would not escape from the letters subsequently written by the learned advocate of the wife to the learned advocate for the husband. Therefore, we cannot place any credence to the letter dated 25.9.84 which is devoid of contest. It may be legitimately inferred that it was manufactured to hook the petitioner husband with the false accusation of loose morals. Merely, his father wrote a letter describing his son as "Pashu" does not reflect in reality for the materials disclosed that the approach of the petitioner was akin to animal behaviour. 21. The learned Counsel for the appellant could not bringforth any material worth the name to unfound the charge of cruelty levelled by the respondent against the wife. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that the cruelty was perpetrated by the wife who had the least intention to perform the conjugal obligation. 22. There is no slender evidence that the petitioner owed his allegiance to wife bashing which was a favourite pasttime of men down the ages. But the evidence is bleak and void for the survey conducted by us about the roughing up the appellant by him ever. Nor there is any evidence that the husband resorted to arduous process of taming his wife and the rough and the ready methods employed by him. In our view there was a scope for a happy compromise. Any worthwhile human relation being based on the sound principle of a healthy give and take can achieve success in marital life. There would have been some saving grace, if the appellant would not have engaged herself in the active combat. In our view there was a scope for a happy compromise. Any worthwhile human relation being based on the sound principle of a healthy give and take can achieve success in marital life. There would have been some saving grace, if the appellant would not have engaged herself in the active combat. She charged her ego without reasonable excuse purely on sentimental grounds. She wanted to take advantage of her own wrong for which conjugal obligation lost its track. It was a tortuous journey in the marital world of her of which she is the lone captain without any passenger in her ship. 23. We cannot resist out temptation to cite three decisions to fortify the reasonings about my agreement with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. 24. For the husband, finding on desertion was sought to be challenged without filing any cross-objection, we may possibly add one line that adjudication of such contention in view of our finding above would merely be academic. 25. The three celebrating decisions (1) Sreepuhar v. Vasantha, AIR 1970 Mys 232; (2) Dastane v. Dastane, AIR 1975 SC 1534 and (3) Harbhajan Singh v. Amarjit, AIR 1986 MP 41 "are high-water mark cases illustrating as to how far a wife can go to cause mental agony and torture to the husband and harass him gruesomely". The case at hand can parade with the above decisions where there is inglorious cruelty meated out to the respondent. In our view, the action of the wife is wilful having no rational basis constituting and unjustifiable interference by her in the total marital life of the two which brings the case within the fold of cruelty under the matrimonial laws and there could be no bar to accord relief to the husband who left no stone unturned to make the marital life a paradise. I have examined from all peak and angle, the reasonings assigned by the learned Trial Court which cannot but be accepted and the judgment and decree stand affirmed dismissing the appeal. Concluding therefore, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed but considering the circumstances without cost. Mookherjce, J.: I agree with the conclusion.