JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This appeal, at the instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.6.1993 passed in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 51/90, whereby and whereunder the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dhanbad dismissed the suit. 2. The plaintiff-husband brought a suit stating, inter alia, that the marriage was solemnized between plaintiff and defendant Smt. Pyasi Devi according to Hindu rites and customs in 1980 and after marriage parties lived together as husband and wife at village Ratu Tand within Dhanbad district and after 1988 the defendant-wife was living in adultery with defendant No. 2 Sahdeo Mahto. The dependent No. 2 is her brother-in-law and he used to come to the house of the plaintiff in his absence. The plaintiff was general Mazdoor under Bharat Cocking Coal Limited and his old mother was living in the house. When the plaintiff saw his wife in adultery with defendant No. 2, then he told to divorce her, but his wife threatened him to falsely implicate in dowry case and this caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of plaintiff that it would be harmful and injurious for the plaintiff to live with defendant No. 1 and further that no issue was borne out of the wedlock and on 23.6.1990 wife-defendant No. 1 left the house of the plaintiff without consent of the mother of the plaintiff. 3. On the other hand, defendants appeared and contested the suit and filed written statements denying all the allegations. A plea has been taken that defendant No. 2 is husband of younger sister of defendant No. 1 and according to customs, both maintained segregation from each other and therefore, allegation of adultery is misconceived and false and further that Sahadeo Mahto (father of defendant No. 1) has got four daughters and the youngest daughter of said Sahdeo Mahto is married with defendant No. 2 and Pyasi Devi (defendant No. 1) is second daughter of Sahadeo Mahto and Rasu Devi is fourth daughter of Sahedo Mahto and question of any sort of illegal relationship between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 does not arise at all. Before filing of the written statement by the defendant No. 1, plaintiff was torturing his wife and she was assaulted and there was a demand of motorcycle in dowry. She was also not allowed to go to her fathers place. 1 and 2 does not arise at all. Before filing of the written statement by the defendant No. 1, plaintiff was torturing his wife and she was assaulted and there was a demand of motorcycle in dowry. She was also not allowed to go to her fathers place. This matter was reported to several persons but the plaintiff-appellant did not listen the suggestion that were made by other persons. The allegation that defendant-respondent has fled away from the house without consent of her mother- in-law is also illegal as in the night of 22.6.1990 appellant-plaintiff and his family members assaulted the defendant-respondent No. 1 and she was confined in a room without food and since they were conspiring for committing murder of defendant No. 1, so she fled away to her fathers house. 4. On the aforesaid pleading of the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues:-- (1) Is there any cause of action for the present suit? (2) Is the suit legally maintainable in its present form? (3) Is the suit barred under the principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? (4) Whether the defendant No. 1 is living in adultery with defendant No. 2? (5) Whether defendant No. 1 has committed cruelty with the plaintiff? (6) Whether the plaintiff demanded dowry from defendant No. 1? (7) Whether the plaintiff has tortured the defendant and forced her to leave matrimonial house? (8) Whether any other relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled? 5. While deciding issues framed in the suit, the learned Court below after considering the evidence both oral and documentary came to a finding that no case for grant of divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty is made out. 6. Case of the plaintiff-appellant is that his marriage with respondent- defendant No. 1 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs in 1980 and both the them lived together till 1988 and thereafter defendant No. 1-respondent is said to have been living in adultery with her brother-in-law, who occasionally used to come to the residence of plaintiff-appellant and even plaintiff-appellant saw his wife in compromising position with defendant No. 2, then is wife threatened him to implicate him in a false case of dowry etc. 7. On the other hand, all the allegations have been denied by defendant Nos. 1 and 2-respondents. 8. 7. On the other hand, all the allegations have been denied by defendant Nos. 1 and 2-respondents. 8. I have also gone through the evidence of the parties and from perusal of evidence, both oral and documentary. I am of the view that no case for grant of divorce on the ground as stated in the petition is made out. Admittedly, marriage was solemnized in the year 1980 and both the parties lived together till 1988 and since 1988, both of them are living separate from each other and relations are so tense that there is no chance or likelihood of their living together in future. They have been living separate from each other for the last sixteen years and, therefore, though a case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of adultery has not been made out but definitely a case on the ground of desertion is made out and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be proper and desirable to allow this appeal on the ground of desertion because definitely both of them have been living separate from each other for the last sixteen years, whoever may be in fault but fact is that they are living separate from each other for the last sixteen years and in the circumstances, nuptial tie be dissolved through a decree of divorce. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the marriage is dissolved. But it is made clear that plaintiff-appellant shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of permanent alimony to the defendant-respondent No. 1. No order as to costs.