Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Raj Kumar Jaiswal, son fo Fakirchand Choudhary of village Shahpur Patori, Purani Bazar, District Samastipur was married with Mamta Jaiswal, dauthter of Radha Krishna Jaiswal, Assistant Station Master, N.E. Railway, Samastipur on 11.6.1990 at Samastipur. 2. On 17.11.1992, the husband filed Divorce case no. 30 of 1992.against the wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. According to the husband, on the day following the date of marriage his wife came to his house and returned back to her fathers place two-three days thereafter and never returned, as she did not agree to live with him She abused and insulted him and refused to come to him. His parents and relations also approached her to come down and live with her husband, but she abused and insulted them too. 4. The wife filed case under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code with false allegations against husband that she was taken to Gorakhpur and was illtreated and assaulted and there was an attempt to kill her. The husband further alleged that his wife wilfully denied cohabitation and sharing of a common bed. 5. The wife appeared and filed rejoinder to the petition filed by husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She asserted that when after marriage she went to her sasural and remained there for sometime, demand of Rs. 25,000/- by way of dowry was made which compelled her to leave sasural. Her husband came to her parents house also and repeated demand of dowry and for that sometime she was also assaulted. She felt lack of safety of her life at her husbands hand. The parents of husband were old and dependent fully on their only son and so they were not in a position to say even a word against bad conduct and behaviour of her husband. 6. It is not in dispute that Mamata was legally married wife of Raj Kumar Jaiswal. According to husband, he was an railway employee and his wifes father was also a railway employee, who had no son, but only two daughters, including Mamta. Immediately after marriage he experienced indifferent attitude of his wife. Her behaviour was very harsh and after staying for two days with his parents, she came back to her fathers place and thereafter never returned to live with them, inspite of best efforts on his part. Immediately after marriage he experienced indifferent attitude of his wife. Her behaviour was very harsh and after staying for two days with his parents, she came back to her fathers place and thereafter never returned to live with them, inspite of best efforts on his part. The husband has been fair enough not to make any allegation of adultery against his wife. He alleged that his wife was never agreeable for cohabitation after she came back to her parents place. The wife also did not deny this fact. In my opinion, this is an act of cruelty on the part of wife. 7. Allegation made by wife against her husband was that on account of greed for dowry relationship between them had become very much strained. The husband always ill treated, misbehaved and even assaulted her. For that reason she could not stay with him at Gorakhpur. She also felt danger of her life from her husband and in such situation, it was not possible for her to live with him. 8. On the other hand, husband denied demand of dowry and any misbehaviour on his part. According to him she had never gone to Gorakhpur and lived with him for a single day. From the pleadings of the parties as well as respective oral evidence brought on record, it appears that since last ten years just after marriage they are living separately. There had been no cohabitation and they have no issue and relationship between them has become very much strained and they are not in a position to live together as husband and wife. The husband alleged cruelty and desertion on the part of his wife and wife apprehended danger of life for her husbands greed for dowry. 9. In my opinion, therefore, it is a fit case in which decree for divorce may be granted. I, therefore, set aside impugned judgment and decree dated 26.9.1994, passed by District Judge, Samastipur in Divorce Case no. 30 of 1992 and decree the suit. 10. The wife is at liberty to exercise her statutory right for grant of permanent alimony and maintenance, if so warranted and for that necessary step may by taken in the trial court and the same will be decided on hearing the parties and taking evidence, if so required, in accordance with law. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed with aforesaid direction. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed with aforesaid direction. However, there will be no order as to costs.