JUDGMENT 1. Admittedly Gopal Chandra Mallick was married with Manjari Mallick. The husband filed Title Matrimonial Suit No. 113 of 1994, under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against his wife for a decree of judicial separation, on the ground that since 13.6.1994 he was living separately from his wife as she had treated him with cruelty continuously since her marriage. 2. The wife appeared and contested the suit. She denied the allegations levelled against her and asserted that she was willing and ready to live with him and lead conjugal life. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that wife did not treat her husband with cruelty, rather husband himself was on the wrong side of the picture regarding the matrimonial dispute between the parties. The husband was not able to substantiate his case of being treated with cruelty by his wife on the basis of any legal and reliable evjdence on the record. It was, therefore, held that the wife never treated her husband with cruelty. The husband failed to prove that his wife ever refused cohabitation with him and/or she had no liking for him, which caused him mental torture amounting to cruelty. The husbands allegation was found totally false. Hence, he has preferred the present appeal. 4. According to appellant, his wife was always unwilling for cohabitation with him. She had sexual relationship with several young boys in the Railway colony at Katras and she did not like him, a man of 35 years of age in comparison to her young boy friends and at the time of shifting from rented house at Gandhi Road to the rented house at Telephone Exchange Road on 13.6.1994 he had found a packet of condom under the bed of his wife. Behaviour of his wife towards him and his family members and the guests of the family was always disrespectful and she used to appear before them in a scanty dress which was indecent and her conduct was unbecoming of a house-wife during her stay at Sita Niwas. She was not providing meal to him whenever he returned to his house from his job. She did not allow him to sleep with her and was treating him as servant. There was no cohabitation between them right from her nuptial night. She was not providing meal to him whenever he returned to his house from his job. She did not allow him to sleep with her and was treating him as servant. There was no cohabitation between them right from her nuptial night. She used to leave the house and go here and there without any information to him and whenever he used to return from his work to his house during the day hours she was always found out of house and on quarry she used to raise hue and cry and on his protest once she insulted him on 16.4.1999 in presence of 8 to 10 women of the locality with false plea that she Was not being provided with meal by him. She along with 30 to 40 women came to Sita Niwas on 19.4.1999 and abused and mentally and physically tortured his brother and sisters, who were residing there. 5. On the other hand, the wife denied the allegations levelled against her. According to her, there was cohabitation between her and the husband in the nuptial night and also thereafter and she was still willing and ready to lead conjugal life with him. 6. Her further case was that her husband used to come at Gandhi Road rented house at 11 Oclock in the night and leave as early as 5 Oclock in the morning and on her protest he used to assault her and give threat of divorce. The husband always declined to take meal on the ground that he had already taken meal outside. 7. It was further alleged that she was denied food and was kept confined in a room and was not allowed to meet anybody. Her husbands elder brother Digvijay Singh used to demand money from her on every alternate day on the threat to be divorced by his brother. 8. The husband deposed in the suit as AW 1, but did not whisper anything regarding the alleged cruelty on account of non- cohabitation between him and his wife as also the recovery of condom under the bed of his wife. Nothing was brought on record to suggest that his wife was a woman of easy virtue and disrepute and no specific case of adultery with Magni Das, the landlord of the rented house in which they were living, was brought on record. 9. Nothing was brought on record to suggest that his wife was a woman of easy virtue and disrepute and no specific case of adultery with Magni Das, the landlord of the rented house in which they were living, was brought on record. 9. No evidence was brought on record to prove that the wife ever refused cohabitation with him as she had no liking for him, rather the wife in her deposition as OW 1 specifically stated that she always intended to lead conjugal life with her husband. 10. AW 4, while deposing on behalf of the husband in the suit stated that both husband and wife led conjugal life together for a period of two years, which demolished the case of the husband. 11. Admittedly, the wife had lived in Sita Niwas at Dhanbad for a week initially after the marriage and thereafter she was again brought there by the members of the womens Cell from Gandhi Road rented house. 12. The brothers and sisters of the husband were not examined as witnesses in the suit. The witnesses examined by the husband including himself failed to substantiate any cruelty on the part of the wife on the basis of which a decree for divorce was being sought. 13. The OPW 1 in her deposition stated that she was turned out of the Sita Niwas by her in-laws and thereafter she was kept in a rented house at Telephone Exchange Road by her husband. When she was left alone in the rented house, then the local people informed the Womens Cell and they brought her therefrom to her matrimonial home at Sita Niwas. 14. The question of cruelty must be determined from the whole facts and matrimonial relations between the spouses. Onus to prove cruelty beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the court lies heavily upon the suing spouse. In the present case the allegation of cruelty and animus deserendi on the part of the wife was not proved by the husband, and as such he was rightly held not entitled to a decree for judicial separation. The husband miserably failed to adduce corroborative evidence to support his allegations. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly with a cost of Rs. The husband miserably failed to adduce corroborative evidence to support his allegations. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent.