Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.9.91 and the decree dated 30.9.91 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 37/89 by 3rd Addl. District Judge, Jamshedpur through which the suit brought by the plaintiff/appellant for a decree for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was dismissed. 2. The fact, in short, for the purpose of this appeal is that the plaintiff-appellant instituted the aforesaid suit as against his wife who is respondent here alleging therein that they were married according to Hindu custom and rites on 29th April, 1980 in village Onda in the district of Bankura, West Bengal in the house of the bride and after that they came to Jamshedpur to the residential house of the plain tiff-appellant and according to Bengali custom, customary Phulsajya was held on 1st of May, 1980 and on that very night, the respondent began to quarrel with him and on the next day, the plaintiff-appellant was asked by his wife to leave her room because two of her relatives were to stay with her in that very room and, thus, the plaintiff was forced to sleep outside the room due to crude behaviour of his wife. After that the plaintiff-appellant left for Onda, the place of the bride for celebration of Asta Mangala, but there also, it has been alleged, that he was humiliated and actually the marriage was not consummated. After that newly married couple had gone to Delhi in October, 1980 for a short while and in Delhi also the respondent behaved with cruelty and has not behaved with him or with his mother and all along she used to humiliate them. Finally on 5.11.1980, the respondent left the matrimonial house of the plaintiff along with her brother Chandan and had taken away all her ornaments and other items on the ground that she had to appear in some examination and after that she never returned, it has been alleged that the plaintiff sent several letters to the respondent requesting her to return to Jamshedpur and to lead conjugal life, but she refused and even the close relation of the plaintiff had gone to Onda to bring her, but the respondent refused to come to Jamshedpur. Even the father of the respondent was also ill-treating the plaintiff and he too was not willing to send his daughter to Jamshedpur. Even the father of the respondent was also ill-treating the plaintiff and he too was not willing to send his daughter to Jamshedpur. Thus it has been alleged that his wife, that is, the respondent deserted her from November, 1980 without any valid cause and due to cruelty and rude behaviour and attitude of the wife, the marriage could not be consummated and, thus, the suit for divorce has been preferred mainly on the ground of desertion and cruelty. 3. The respondent-defendant entered appearance and contested the suit by filing written statement and denied the allegation of the plaintiff-appellant that she used to quarrel with her husband and her behaviour was rude and shocking even in Phulsajya night and further the entire allegation of rude behaviour and cruelty was denied and one Pradeep was also introduced as a paramour of the respondent in order to make the case of divorce. This defendant has also denied that due to her attitude there was no proper cohabitation and the marriage was not consummated; rather this respondent found after the marriage that the appellant was impotent and suffering from some mental disorder because of this impotency. The mother and the elder brother of the appellant knew about this disease but they suppressed all these facts and got him married with this defendant. In fact, it has been alleged that her behaviour with the plaintiff-husband and the family members was very cordial and normal and she never refused to have conjugal relationship, but the applicant himself could not establish normal conjugal relationship due to his impotency. It was also submitted that due to impotency, the plaintiff was very much annoyed and furious and she was driven out of the house and she helplessly came to Onda with her brother on 5.11.80 leaving behind her all ornaments, clothes, etc.at Jamshedpur. It was also submitted on behalf of this defendant that several letters were written by her and her family members to the plaintiff and his family members for taking this respondent to Jamshedpur, but they did not pay any attention to those letters nor this defendant was taken to Jamshedpur; rather only an assurance was given to this defendant that the plaintiff was undergoing some treatment and the moment he will be cured, she will be taken to Jamshedpur. On the submissions made above,the defendant- wife contested the suit and she resisted the prayer for dissolution of marriage. 4. The trial court framed several issues and mainly issue Nos. 1 and 2, that is, whether the respondent deserted the plaintiff-appellant for more than two years and also treated him with cruelty were main issues and both these issues were decided as against the plaintiff and ultimately the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with this dismissal order, this appeal had been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant. In this appeal, the only question for consideration is if the plaintiff- appellant is entitled for decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and also by desertion by the wife, that is, the respondent. 5. It is admitted position that the plaintiff who is an employee of TISCO Ltd. at Jamshedpur married the respondent on 29.4.80 in village Onda within the district of Bankura according to Hindu custom. It is also admitted case of parties that after the marriage his wife, respondent, came to Jamshedpur in her matrimonial house but the plaintiff has alleged that immediately after the marriage, he was subjected to torture and cruelty by his wife. So far allegation of cruelty is concerned, it has been alleged in the plaint and also it is the evidence of the plaintiff (P.W.I) himself that even on the Suhag Rat which is called as Phulsajya in Bengali custom which took place admittedly on 1.5.80 due to harsh attitude of the wife, the marriage could not be consummated and even on the next day, that is, 2.5.80, the plaintiff was forced to sleep outside the room mainly on the ground that two of the close relations of his wife will sleep in that room. It is also the case of the plaintiff that even the plaintiff had gone to his Sasural alongwith his wife for celebrating another custom that is, Asta Mangala and in that very place, he was also treated harshly and he had to suffer indignity due to behaviour of his wife and in-laws and even when he had gone to Delhi sometime in October, 1980 alongwith his wife and stayed, his wife ill-treated his mother and also to him. So from the very inception of marriage, that is, from 1.5.80 to 5.11.80 when the wife had left for her parents place, the plaintiff had alleged cruelty and had given some instances as mentioned above. 6. So far the first allegation that his wife began to quarrel on the Phulsajya night for the reason that he was not an Engineer by profession and an impression was given to her that her marriage was being performed with an Engineer and only for this reason she began to quarrel with him and not allowed him even to touch her body and, thus, marriage could not be consummated. No doubt it is the case of the respondent wife that such allegations had been levelled only to make out the case of cruelty and, in fact, the plaintiff is an abnormal man and also due to impotency the marriage could not be consummated and she was turned out of her matrimonial house. There is no two opinion that for securing a decree for dissolution of marriage, the plaintiff has to prove the allegation of cruelty and so far the case of the respondnet is concerned, that can be enquired only if the plaitniff will succeed in proving his case. 7. Regardingthe allegation of ill-treatment, even on Phulsajya night, it can be said that the basis of quarrrel was that the plaintiff himself is not an Engineer and this important fact had not been disclosed in the plaint itself; rather developed in the evidence stage. Moreover,for all these allegations of cruelty and torture, only the is the evidence of the plaintiff and even the other witness, that is, P.W. 2 Laxmi Dutt, the elder sister of the plaintiff, is the other witness but she simply stated that her brother came out of Phulsajya night from the room. So far other allegation that on 2nd May, 1980, that is on the next day of Phulsajya night, the plaintiff was not allowed to sleep with his wife for the reason that two of the relations of his wife were asked to stay in the room, it can be said that this very allegation is baseless because P.W. 1, the plaintiff himself, admitted in his cross-examination that the two close relations of his wife who stayed in the room were female relations. If that is so, it is quite possible that due to paucity of space two of the female relations might have stayed int he night in the room of the plaintiffs wife and this itself cannot be said to be cruelty. 8. Regarding the other allegation that when the plaintiff had gone to his Sasural for Asia Mangala ceremony or even at Delhi with his wife, he was ill- treated by his wife, the evidence of plaintiff remained uncorroborated and the entire allegation appears to be extremely vague and no specific instance had been cited by the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff in his evidence that when he had gone to his Sasural, then his wife introduced one boy named Pradeep and claimed that his very Pradeep was her first husband, but from the cross-examination of the plaintiff it can be said that he had not made any enquiry about the said Pradeep; rather such allegation appears to be fantastic and improbable because a wife is not expected, more particularly when she wants to live with her husband, to introduce a boy as her first husband,. So the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the plea of the plaintiff- appellant that he was subjected to cruelty and torture by his wife. 9. learned Counsel for the appellant made an attempt to prove the allegation of cruelty on the basis of the allegation levelled by the respondent- wife that her husband is impotent and due to impotency her life was miserable and marriage could not be consummated. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that this allegation has been denied by the appellant himself in his evidence . Further the appellant was examined by a doctor at Calcutta and Ext. 2, the certificate and prescription dated 17.2.84 of the doctor celearly shows that the appellant is not impotent. Thus levelling of such serious and uncharitable remark without any foundation by the wife will definitely create mental torture and lower the reputation of the husband and, thus, this amounts to cruelty of serious nature. In this connection it may be said that the doctor, A.K. Dutta who examined the appellant had not been examined as a witness and, thus, his report (Ext. In this connection it may be said that the doctor, A.K. Dutta who examined the appellant had not been examined as a witness and, thus, his report (Ext. 2) is not admissible because his report has been simply proved by P.W. 5 another doctor who is a Radiologist and a close relation of the plaintiff himself being his nephew. On the other hand from the evidence of respondent, D.W. 2 and other witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent, including some letters written by the relation of the plaintiff, it can be said that the plaintiff was suffering from some disease, for that treatment was going on. Moreover, the allegation made by the wife in her written statement is just by way of her defence and an explanation was advanced for the allegation as to why the marriage could not be consummated and she tried to explain that it is not due to her fault and due to her bad temperament rather due to incapability of her husband itself. So in order to make out a defence, this story was introduced. Moreover, the appellant has not made out a case in his petition for divorce that her wife made such uncharitable remark about his impotency and lack of manliness. In that view of the matter, the appellant is not entitled to take advantage of the defence as advanced by his wife. 10. learned Counsel for the appellant in support of his contention relied upon a decision of Bombay High Court reported in -- Smt. Nirmala Manohar Jagesa V/s. Manohar Shifram Jagesa and further it was contended that if such wild and vague allegations are made by wife without any basis then it amounts to cruelty. 11. In fact, the word "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act itself but admittedly it is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duty and obligation and cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. The Supreme Court in Sobha Rani V/s. Madhukar Reddy, reported in -- also held that there has been marked change in the life around us and in respect of matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, there is a sea-change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or a person to person. The Supreme Court in Sobha Rani V/s. Madhukar Reddy, reported in -- also held that there has been marked change in the life around us and in respect of matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, there is a sea-change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or a person to person. In such a situation when a spouse makes allegation about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relation, the court should not search for standard in life. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic or social condition and further it may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach important. Thus, mental cruelty is to be tested in the light of the test laid down by the Apex Court and in that situation the allegation made by the respondent in the written statement is not an uncharitable remark but it is merely a defence and only a case was made out as to why the marriage could not be consummated. So on this score alone, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled for a decree for dissolution of marriage. Moreover, in Anil Kumar Banerjee V/s. Smt. Shefali Banerjee, it was held that allegation in the written objection by wife on her husband that he was living in adultery cannot be said that allegation caused mental cruelty to husband. More particularly when the wife got a bonafide belief and apprehension about the potency of her husband. 12. The appellant also claimed dissolution of marriage for continuous desertion for more than two years and it is the case of the appellant that her wife left with all her ornaments and clothes on 5.11.80 and after that she never returned to her matrimonial house inspite of several letters and even requests by his close relation. Admittedly the appellants wife was in her parents house from 5.11.80 and the appellant has claimed that she let the house in disgust with her brother on a false pretext for appearing in the examination and that his close relations had also gone and requested her to come to Jamshedpur but she refused. On this point there is evidence of P.W. 2 and that of P.W. 1 and also that of P.W. 3 P.Ws. On this point there is evidence of P.W. 2 and that of P.W. 1 and also that of P.W. 3 P.Ws. 2 and 3 who are also close relation of the appellant have simply clairned that they had gone to Onda to pursuade the respondent to come to Jamshedpur but the respondent simply made a promise that she will come but did not fulfil the promise. 13. On the other hand it is the consistent evidence of respondent D.W. 2 and that of D.Ws. 1 and 3 that the appellant or his relation never cam to Onda to take the respondent and that their pursuasion and request on his point failed. From the evidence of D.W. 4 Abdul Karim an Accountant of Canara Bank, Jamshedpur and that of the documents of the Bank it can be said that a locker was opened for keeping the ornaments of the appellant and the respondent and it is the appellant who stopped the operation of the locker. Thus the allegation that the appellant left the matrimonial house with all the ornaments is definitely baseless. 14. From the letters produced on behalf of the parties, it can e said that the respondent had never tried to ill-behave with her husband; rather expressed her desire to maintain a cordial relationship. Even in her evidence in the lower court, the respondent-wife made a categorical statement that she is still willing to live with her husband and her husband is not willing to take her. Even in this Court, an attempt was made for settlement and the wife was willing to live with her husband but apparently the husband refused to take her for various reasons according to him. Thus it can be said that the appellant has utterly failed to prove that his wife has deserted him and she left the matrimonial house with sole intention not to return. If at all the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial house and no attempt was made by the husband to bring his wife, then even the long absence of the wife right from 5.11.80 will not be treated as a desertion because due to fault and negligence on the part of the husband, wife was forced to live separately. So the trial court was perfectly justified in coming to a conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff also hopelessly failed to prove that he was deserted by the wife. So the trial court was perfectly justified in coming to a conclusion that the appellant-plaintiff also hopelessly failed to prove that he was deserted by the wife. 15. Lastly the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly the husband and wife are living separately. From November, 1980 and during that period ill-relation has also developed and, thus, it can be said that the marriage between the parties has irrevocably broken down and on this ground alone, the appellant is also entitled for a decree of divorce. From the evidence on the record it can be said that it was the husband who harassed the wife and neglected here and in such a situation irretrievable breaak down of marriage is not contemplated to be one of the grounds for dissolution of marriage in the entire scheme of Hindu Marriage Act and if due to neglect and callous attitude of the husband, there is a break down of the marriage, then the law does not contemplate granting of decree of divorce because in such a situation, a spouse who commits wrong will take advantage of his own wrong. Similar view was also expressed by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court reported in AIR 1989 Delhi 121 Ashok Kumar Bhatnagar V/s. Smt. Shabnam Bhatnagar. 16. So from a careful consideration of the entire evidence on the record, I am of the opinion that the trial court was perfectly justified in rejecting the plea of the appellant and rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant and prayer for dissolution of the marriage was rightly rejected. Under the circumstances I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and so it is dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 500.00 (five hundred) only.