ANSARI, J. ( 1 ) INSTANT appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 24, 2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th court at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 2/1989. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'husband' and the 'wife'. ( 3 ) HUSBAND instituted the aforesiad matrimonial suit praying for a decree of divorce on two grounds i. e. cruelty and desertion. By the judgment and decree under appeal the said suit was dismissed. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the parties hereto were married on September 10,1981 and the marriage had been registered under the Special Marriage act, 1954. It is also not in dispute that no formal ceremonial function was performed for the said marriage or even thereafter. ( 5 ) IT also appears from the pleadings and evidence on record that the respondent/defendant (wife), after the marriage, lived in her paternal house. The appellant-husband lived in a separate house with his family comprising of grandmother, mother and unmarried sister. According to the husband after the marriage in September, 1981 the wife started behaving in the manner which caused humiliation, insult and loss of prestige to the husband amougst friends and near relations. Specific incidents which according to the husband constitute mental cruelty have been pleaded in para 5 of the petition for divorce. ( 6 ) AS regards desertion, it was pleaded by the husband that during the period from September 10,1985 to December 30,1985 the wife stayed at the matrimonial home for a short spell and not at a stretch. Finally on december 30,1985 wife left matrimonial home with the intention to end the marriage. ( 7 ) THE wife contested the suit and filed written statement denying all adverse allegations. It was specifically denied that she (wife) was taken to her matrimonial home to reside with the husband in his house. It is her case that she has not lived with the husband in his house at any time despite repeated request by her and, therefore, it was pleaded that the question of leaving the matrimonial home does not arisa. ( 8 ) AS many as 5 issued were framed as under:-"1. Has the petitioner cause of action for the suit ? 2. Was the respondent cruel to the petitioner and his near relations ? 3. ( 8 ) AS many as 5 issued were framed as under:-"1. Has the petitioner cause of action for the suit ? 2. Was the respondent cruel to the petitioner and his near relations ? 3. Did the respondent deserted the petitioner and her matrimonial house on 30. 12. 85 ? 4. Has the. petitioner been suffering mental pain due to cruel act and unnatural behaviour of the respondent ? 5. Is the petitioner entitled to a decree as claimed ?" ( 9 ) ON the side of the husband he was the sole witness and the documents marked in evidence on his side are the marriage certificate ext. 1 and personal letters marked as Exts. 2 to 2 (c ). On the side of the defendant-wife she examined herself as D. W.-1, her mother was examined as D. W.-2 and landlady of the house wherein the wife resides with her parents has deposed as D. W.-3. The documentary evidence marked on the side of the wife are Ext. A which is an A. D. Card and Exts. B to B-1 and ext. C 'chit' written by the respondent to the wife. ( 10 ) IN the judgment under appeal it was held that the husband did not set up any matrimonial house during the long years of matrimonial life. With regard to the grounds of cruelty it was held that same are not proved and, therefore, it was held that neither of the grounds of desertion or cruelty have been proved. ( 11 ) THE aforesaid conclusions and findings of the learned Court below are assailed in the instant appeal. ( 12 ) LET us take up for consideration the question as to whether the ground of desertion is established. ( 13 ) IT is by now well settled that desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the married state, the state of things may usually be, termed, for short the home. For the fact of desertion to exist there must be both the factum of physical separation and animus deserendi or intention to desen. For the fact of desertion to exist there must be both the factum of physical separation and animus deserendi or intention to desen. ( 14 ) IT is evident from the evidence of the appellant as PW-1 that after the marriage the wife used to stay at her mother's house whilst he stayed in his house with his grandmother, mother and sister. He admitted in cross-examination that his mother-in-law (DW-2) told him to take away her daughter to his house and also wrote a letter in this respect. Ext. A is the a. D. Card. Wife's mother (DW-2) stated tnat she tried to send her daughter to the father-in-laws house and also asked the appellant to take his wife to his home. The landlady (DW-3) stated that the husband used to come at the tenanted house of the wife. There is also no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that as there was a 'matrimonial home' the contention of the wife that husband did not set up matrimonial home was not tenable. We are therefore inclined to confirm the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned Court below and hold that the ground of desertion has not been established. ( 15 ) AS regards the grounds on which cruelty is sought to be established, Mr. Uma Sankar Banerjee appearing along with Mr. Samar ghosh and Mr. Madan Mohan Ray, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the pleadings in the petition for divorce constitute series of violent acts of wild suspicion held by the respondent-wife against her husband which constitute mental cruelty. The submisson is that the same are admitted by the wife in her letters Exts. 2, 2 (b) and 2 (c ). Further, it was contended that various incidents of cruelty pleaded have not been considered in their proper perspective in the judgment under appeal. ( 16 ) TRUE, as contended by Mr. Banerjee, leaned Court below has not dealt with the specific incidents which allegedly caused mental pain to the husband but had proceeded to consider the issue regarding cruelty en the totally of evidence on record and it was held thai the same is not proved. ( 17 ) MR. Banerjee, leaned Counsel for the appellant, referred to the incident as pleaded, said to have occurred at Digha. ( 17 ) MR. Banerjee, leaned Counsel for the appellant, referred to the incident as pleaded, said to have occurred at Digha. Pleading in para 5 (g)is to the effect that at Digha the wife left the company of the husband from the restaurant thinking that another woman was looking at her husband and when the husband returned to the hotel he found that she had shut the door of her room and threatened she would commit suicide leaving a note accusing the husband of her death. Husband passed a sleepless night with terrible fear and apprehension of something bad happening and on the next morning the husband cancelled the booking of the cottage and returned to calcutta as the wife refused to accompany him. ( 18 ) WITH regard to above incident the wife stated her version in the written statement. It is her case that after the supper husband abused her and violently assaulted her when she protested. When she tried to seek help from the next door members of the hotel husband forcibly snatched away all the garments and forced her to another room and locked the room from outside. It was only the next morning that the door was opened. ( 19 ) THE evidence on record shows that in the examination-in-chief as PW-1 husband has deposed with regard to this incident only in the following terms:-". . . . . . . . . . . . Not a fact that I assaulted her mercilessly in the room of hotel at Pigha and torn her wearing apparels. . . . . . . . . " ( 20 ) AS DW-1, wife, depose in examination-in-chief that there was no one where they took dinner and thereafter when they returned to hotel husband abused her and when she protested by telling him that she would inform this matter to occupants of the next cottage she was assaulted and was pushed by the husband inside the room which was locked from outside. On the next morning husband asked her to get ready and left Digha together. The only cross-examination on this aspect of the matter is a suggestion made which was denied by the wife in the following terms :-"it is not a fact that I behaved rudely with him at Digha and other places. On the next morning husband asked her to get ready and left Digha together. The only cross-examination on this aspect of the matter is a suggestion made which was denied by the wife in the following terms :-"it is not a fact that I behaved rudely with him at Digha and other places. " ( 21 ) WE are therefore inclinec) to accept the evidence of the wife on the preponderance of the probabilities. There is no evidence in support of the incident as pleaded by the husband. A pleading in the petition has to be established by evidence which the appellant has failed to do. ( 22 ) ANOTHER incident pleaded in para 5 (g) of the petition is said to have occurred in 1983 at Lake Town. The pleading is to the effect that at the roadside of Lake Town wife was abusing the husband in filthy language in loud voice by raising her finger suspecting illicit connection between husband and an unknown lady in a bus who was looking at him. At that time a police jeep stopped and the Officer-in-Charge, Lake Town Police station got down and to ok both the husband and wife to the Lake Town police Station. After hiaring the statement from both parties Officer-in-charge wanted the respondent-wife to bring her parents and thereafter the officer-in-Charge warned the wife in presence of her parents not to exhibit any misbehaviour on road in future. The plea is that the husband was humiliated and insulted by the aforesaid acts of the wife. The only evidence adduced in support of the pleading is the testimony of the husband. ( 23 ) IN his deposition as PW-1, husband deposed that the wife was shouting loudly over her suspicion regarding women and at that time police jeep stopped there. Officer-in-Charge asked him what was the matter and the wife told him that she was insulted by the husband whereupon the officer-in-Charge took them both to the police Station and put the husband "inside the thana lock up". When wife larnt that she would be put into lock up also she informed her parents over phone. Officer-in-Charge asked him what was the matter and the wife told him that she was insulted by the husband whereupon the officer-in-Charge took them both to the police Station and put the husband "inside the thana lock up". When wife larnt that she would be put into lock up also she informed her parents over phone. Thereafter her parents came to P. S. and told everything to Officer-in-Charge and thereafter they were released |t was further deposed that when they were taken to Police Station respondent first did not introduce him before Officer-in-Charge as her husband- In cross-examination he admitted that he told before the police that respondent was his wife and in spite of such, Disclosure of their identity they were taken to the Police Station. He further admittedthat Oficer-in-Charge told him verbally to bring anyone from his wife's house. He further stated that "so far as I remember I told it to my lawayer but I am not sure whether it was mentioned in my petition. " There is a clear contradiction between the evidence of PW-1 and his pleadings. ( 24 ) WIFE as DW-1 deposed that at Lake Town Park she and her husband were sitting closely and the police came and took them to the police Station. She told her husband to inform his mother to come and depose about their being married. Husband took no step she then informed her landlord to inform her parents, whereupon her parents came with marriage certificate to the Police Station and upon seeing the marriage certificate the police officer discharge them. The version of the wife is probable and, therefore, to be accepted. ( 25 ) THE other allegations of mental cruelty alleged in the plaint and in paragraphs 5 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i ). The acts of cruelty pleaded pertain to allegations by the wife based on suspicion of alleged association of husband with women including the friends of the wife, female nurses, staff, patients. It was contended that these allegations made by wife are based on mere doubt and suspicion and are, therefore, wholly baseless and unfounded. Husband claimed that he is entitled to grant of divorce based upon the said allegations of immoral conduct imputed to the husband by the wife. It was contended that these allegations made by wife are based on mere doubt and suspicion and are, therefore, wholly baseless and unfounded. Husband claimed that he is entitled to grant of divorce based upon the said allegations of immoral conduct imputed to the husband by the wife. ( 26 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-wife submitted that none of those allegations pleaded have been established by the evidence on record and the Court rightly disbelieved the testimony of the husband. ( 27 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant-husband submitted that there is clear admission by the wife with regard to her suspicions nature and the averments in the plaint are established by Exts. 2 (b) and 2 (c ). As reliance has been placed upon certain decisions of this Court on this aspect of the matter by the learned Counsel for the appellant let us refer to the same. ( 28 ) IN the case of Nemai Kr. Ghosh v. Smt. Mita Ghosh, 89 CWN 904, it was held by this Court that any imputation against the character of any spouse made either by the wife or by the husband on mere suspicion and without foundation would amount to mental cruelty and would be a valid ground for passing a decree of divorce. In the case of Harendra Nath burman v. Suprova Burman and Anr. ,air 1989 Calcutta 120, it was held that unfounded or baseless allegation of adultery by one spouse against the other constitutes mental cruelty of the gravest character to warrant the grant of divorce. In the case of Santana Banerjee v. Sachindra Nath Banerjee, air 1990 Calcutta 367, the wife alleged Illicit sexual relation of the husband with his office colleague and also indulged in making reckless, false and motivated allegation against her husband and his close relation not only in her written statement but also in her deposition. It was held in that case that such allegations constitute cruelty of a very grave nature. In Amarendra nath Sannyal v. Krishna Sannyal, 1993 (1) CHN 213 , a case arising under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, above cited decisions have been noticed and following the same It was held that unfounded and baseless allegations made by the wife against the character of the husband in written statement and also in her deposition constitute mental cruelty of the gravest character to warrant a divorce. ( 29 ) WE have no hesitation in stating that we are in respectful agreement with the dicta laid down by this Court in the decisions cited. It is therefore not necessary to refer to certain other decisions of other High courts taking similar view, which were also cited before us, by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, it must be stated here that the wife has not made any allegations of character assassination nor made any scandalous or malicious allegations with respect to the character or the illicit connection of the husband with other women either in her written statement or in her deposition. On the contrary wife has denied the allegations imputed to her in the plaint as false. In her evidence as DW-1 she denied that she used to suspect her husband regarding his mixing with her friends. She further denied that she was always suspicious. She also denied that she told her husband that there was an illicit connection between the female patientsand her husband. As pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent-wife there is no cross-examination on this aspect of the matter from the said of the husband. ( 30 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has relied mainly upon the admissions said to have been made in the letters of the wife being Exts. 2 (b)and 2 (c) to prove the said allegations made in the plaint. ( 31 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that when statements are made in letters same can be used against the maker as admissions though same cannot be used in favour of the maker accepting them to be correct statements. Reliance has been placed upon Mahendra Manilal nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati, AIR 1965 SC 364 , wherein the supreme Court opined that:-". . . . . . . . . . . . IN proceedings underthe Act the Court can arrive at the satisfaction contemplated by Section 23 on the basis of legal evidence in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and that it is quite competent for the Court to arrive at the necessary satisfaction even on the basis of the admissions of the parties alone. Admissions are to be ignored on grounds of prudence only when the court, in the circumstances of a ease, is of opinion that the admissions of the parties may be collusive. Admissions are to be ignored on grounds of prudence only when the court, in the circumstances of a ease, is of opinion that the admissions of the parties may be collusive. If there be no ground for such a view, it would be proper for the Court to act on those admissions without forcing the parties to lead other evidence to establish the facts admitted, unless of course the admissions are contradicted by the facts proved or a doubt is created by the proved facts as regards the corriectness of the facts admitted. " ( 32 ) IN Thiru John V. The Returning Officer and Ors. , AIR 1977 SC 1724 , it was held as under:-"15, It ii well sttled that a party. 's admission as defined in sections 17 to 20 fulfilling the requirements of Section 21, Evidence act, is substantive evidence proprio vigore. An admission, if clearly and unequivocally made, is the best evidence against the party making it and though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the maker on the principle that 'what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until the resumption was rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be established. " ( 33 ) FROM the contentions as above and the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant it is apparent that the entire case of the petitioner with regard to the grounds of cruelty pleaded in the aforesaid sub-paragraphs of para 5 rests on admissions said to haye been made by the wife in her letters Exts. 2b and 2c. Also it is clear that the appellant relies solely on the admissions said to have been made by the wife in the aforesaid exhibits to establish the ground of cruelty, as pleaded. . ( 34 ) NO doubt, as held by the Supreme Court in the judgments, cited supra, relied upon by Mr. Uma Sankar Banerjee, Court is competent to arrive at the necessary satisfaction on the basis of the admissions of the parties. The admission should be clear and unequivocal. It is equally well settled that an admission unless it is separable has to be taken as a whole or not at all. Admission cannot be split up and part of it used against the maker. The admission should be clear and unequivocal. It is equally well settled that an admission unless it is separable has to be taken as a whole or not at all. Admission cannot be split up and part of it used against the maker. Principle being that admission must be used either as a whole or not at all. (See. Hanumant v. State of M. P. , AIR 1952 SC 343 ). An admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted and such admissions if duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making it appeared in the witness box or not and whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements, ( 35 ) JUDGED in the light of the above principles, it will be seen that admissions sought to be relied upon are neither unequivocal nor the statements made by the wife in the Exts. 2b and 2c are capable of dissection. They are inextricably connected with that part of the explanation as regards the conduct of the husband which is responsible for creating such doubts in her mind. ( 36 ) THE contentions as regards admission by the wife in her afpresaid letters is therefore to be rejected. In the circumstances we hold that petitioner has failed to establish the acts of cruelty alleged. . ( 37 ) NEXT, it was contended that the marriage has practically broken down and that there is no chance of the parties coming together and leading a conjugal life. The marriage between the parties should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage. It was elaborated by submitting, that the parties have been living apart and the marriage is practically dead. It was sought to be contended that the parties have remained apart from each other for the past 23 years. the martimonoal suit was pending in the Trial Court for 14 years from 1988 and thereafter in this court, the marriage between the parties, it was contended has irretrieveably broken down. The allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties are such that there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties nor is it possible for them to live together as husband and wife. The allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties are such that there is no possibility of reconciliation between the parties nor is it possible for them to live together as husband and wife. Prayer was made to dissolve the marriage between the parties and reliance is placed for that proposition upon the judgments in (i) Amarendra Sannyal v. Krishna sannyal, 1993 (1) CHN 213 , (ii) Smt. Jayanti Burman and Ors. v. Shree Shree satya Narayanjee, 2004 (1) WBLR (Cal) 836, (iii) Shikhachand Jain v. Digambar Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Ors. , AIR 1974 SC 1178 and (iv)sabitanjali Pattanaik v. Priyabrata Pattakaik, AIR 2001 Orissa 84. ( 38 ) IN reply to the above contentions learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground for divorce nor is such a plea available to the spouse who is responsible for the break down of marriage. Reliance was placed on Section 23 of the HM Act to urge that the erring spouse cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. ( 39 ) NEEDLESS to reiterate that irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground by itself to dissolve the marriage. (See. Swapan Kr. Ganguli v. Smrltikana Ganguli, 2001 (3) CHN 124 ). The grounds based on which divorce was prayed for and the allegations based on which the said prayer is founded have not been established. On the basis of evidence on record the guilt for the break down of marriage cannot be ascribed to the respondent-wife. The evidence suggests that it is the husband that has contributed to the present impasse in the marriage between the parties. The marriage was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act and the husband did not even set up matrimonial home instead used to visit the house of the wife and on some occassions took his wife for temporary outings and stayed there with her. ( 40 ) LASTLY, it was contended that the post-litigation allegations entitle the husband to a decree of divorce. It was submitted that the wife in her written statement in Paragraph 9 wife alleged that she became pregnant due to cohabitation and on coming to know about the pregnancy, husband compelled the wife for abortion and the same was carried out on March 20, 1982. It was submitted that the wife in her written statement in Paragraph 9 wife alleged that she became pregnant due to cohabitation and on coming to know about the pregnancy, husband compelled the wife for abortion and the same was carried out on March 20, 1982. Husband in his deposition as P. W.-1 has not stated anything about the pregnancy of his wife in his examination-in-chief. In cross-examination he stated that he was not aware about the wife becoming pregnant in 1982 and denied the suggestion that he admitted her in a different name in a nursing home for causing abortion. Wife admitted in her cross-examination that she has no document to show that there was an abortion and also denied the suggestion that she did not become pregnant. According to the appellant the unproved allegation is malicious. The plea of abortion was taken by the wife in the written statement. No rejoinder to the same was filed nor even in his evidence as PW-1 appellant stated anything about the pregnancy of his wife except denying that due to cohabitation the respondent became pregnant and also denying that he forced her to make abortion. The plea of abortion was taken by the wife in the written statement. No rejoinder to the same was filed nor even in his evidence as PW-1 appellant stated anything about the pregnancy of his wife except denying that due to cohabitation the respondent became pregnant and also denying that he forced her to make abortion. Wife in her deposition stated that she wad admitted in a nursing home for abortion under a different name and the suggestion to the appellant in his cross-examination that was made though denied by him is that the owner of nursing home was the friend of the appellant It is difficult in the circumstances to establish by document such abortion According to the evidence of the appellant they resided as husband and wife only between september, 1985 to December, 1985 and in the year 1983 when they went out oh a tour to Digha It is improbable that after the marriage which was performed on September 10, 1981 they did not consummate the marriage despite meeting regularly and also at times living together during the period ( 41 ) IT was further contended that the following statements in the written statement of the wife constitute cruelty - (a) that her husband is a man of perverse imagination , (b) that her husband lacks rationality , (c) that the descriptions of the nature of the respondent, as has been given by the petitioner, reveals his own nature and character ( 42 ) THE allegations relied upon, noticed above, are not of the type as in Bhagat v Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710 Counter-allegations have to be read in the context in which they are made and what has to be seen is whetherthe wife was defending herself against any unfounded allegations and aspersions on her character or whether any allegations had been made with regard to her mental capacity so as to warrant the defence in the written statement about the husband's rationality In other words, the counter-allegations would have to be examined in the context whether it was necessary for the wife to make those allegations in the context of the allegations which she was required to derend Viewed in that light it is to be noticed that allegations have been made in the petition for divorce against the wife alleging that she was suffering from psychopathic disorder The incidents of cruelty pleaded by the husband which, as we have found above, have not been established and some of the allegations are of the nature which would justify the wife taking the plea in her written statement as above in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the petition respondent-wife is sought to be made out as a cruel woman, suspicious in nature, lacking mental soundness and that according to the husband it would be harmful, impossible and dangerous to the very existence of the petitioner to keep even connection with the respondent We therefore find no merit in the said contention ( 43 ) WE accordingly reject the said contention ( 44 ) AN application being CAN No 6817 of 2004 has been filed under order 41 Rule 27 C P C for receiving additional evidence The contention in support thereof is that the subsequent events (events after the judgment of Trial Court) needs to be taken into account and, therefore, appellant be permitted to bring the said evidence of certain witnesses on record to shorten the litigation The submission is that baaed on those subsequent events appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce Learned Counsel for respondent strenuously opposed the said prayer and contended that the application is not maintainable much less on the grounds pleaded in support thereof ( 45 ) COURT is conferred the power to receive additional evidence only in the circumstances enumerated in Order41, Rule 27 C. P. C. The evidence sought to be introduced is not falling under either of the Clauses (a) (aa) or (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41 C. P. C. ( 46 ) TRUE, as held by the Supreme Court in Shikhachan Jain v. Digambar Jain Prabank Karini Sabha and Ors. (supra), it is open to a Court including a Court of appeal to take notice of events which have happened afterthe institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally (1) has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate ; (2)where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation or (3) to do complete justice between the parties In the instant case appellant is not seeking to amend his pleadings with regard to any changed circumstances or subsequent events. There is no plea of any new situation arising during the pendency of this appeal which needs to be taken notice of. The appellant is seeking to introduce additional evidence in support of the relief already prayed for. The nature of evidence sought to be introduced does not fall within that category as envisaged in order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. and accordingly we dismiss the application as not maintainable. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed with costs quantified at rs. 5000. Application being CAN No. 6817 of 2004 is dismissed as not maintainable.