JUDGMENT: BHATTACHARYA, J. (1). This first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12th January, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, in Matrimonial Suit No.419 of 1998, thereby passing a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. (2). Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present first appeal. (3). The respondent-husband filed an application under Sections 13(1) (i), (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion. The said suit gave rise to the Matrimonial Suit No. 419 of 1998. The case made out by the husband in the said petition for divorce may be summed up thus: -(a) The parties were married on 26th February, 1996 according to Hindu rites and customs. The husband was the only son of his parents. The said marriage was the outcome of negotiation between the parents and close relatives of the parties. (b) After the marriage, the husband found that the wife was a quarrelsome lady and was always trying to quarrel with the parents of the husband on various pretexts. At first, the husband and his parents tried to adjust the situation but subsequently, they found that the rude behaviour of the wife had been crossing the limit day-by-day. (c) The wife had been trying to pressurize the husband to live separately from his parents which the husband had refused as he was the only son of his parents. Such behaviour on the part of the wife had caused mental cruelty upon the husband. (d) Immediately after marriage, the wife had become pregnant and the husband and his parents had expected that the situation would change as the newborn would act as a bridge among the members of the family and the life would be happy. (e) Suddenly in the month of July, 1996, the wife, without any reasonable cause and without taking consent of her husband, left the matrimonial house and went to her parents home. At first, the husband thought that the wife had just gone to see her parents, but very soon he had realized that his idea was totally wrong. (e) Suddenly in the month of July, 1996, the wife, without any reasonable cause and without taking consent of her husband, left the matrimonial house and went to her parents home. At first, the husband thought that the wife had just gone to see her parents, but very soon he had realized that his idea was totally wrong. (f) After the abovementioned incident, when the husband went to the paternal house of the wife to take her back, she made excuse of her illness and told the husband that she would return after some days. Again after some days, when the husband went to take her back, she yet again feigned illness and told that she would come after some days. Some days thereafter, when the husband once more went to the paternal house of the wife, at that time she disclosed that she would return to the matrimonial home after the delivery of the baby. The husband tried to convince her that as he was a doctor, he had adequate sources to make delivery of the child in a good nursing home, but the wife refused the said proposal. (g) In the month of December, 1996 the wife had given birth of a female child and after some days, the husband told her to come back to the matrimonial home with the newborn baby but the wife still pretended illness and refused to come back to the matrimonial home. (h) After some days, when the husband was on his duty in the hospital, the wife purposely came to the matrimonial home alone and left the matrimonial home on the same day with all her ornaments without the consent of the husband. The said incident had distressed the husband very much and when he asked the cause, the wife kept silent. Subsequently, an officer from the Local Ration Office came to the house of the husband for enquiry and from him, the husband came to know that the wife had applied for transfer of her Ration-card to the address of her paternal home. (i) All the above incidents had caused shock to the husband and he had doubt as to whether the wife would go on maintaining the matrimonial relation or not. (i) All the above incidents had caused shock to the husband and he had doubt as to whether the wife would go on maintaining the matrimonial relation or not. The suspicion of the husband had become stronger when he came to know while he went to the paternal home of the wife for taking her back that she had taken admission in a computer course. It was most surprising that the mother of a newborn baby had taken admission in a computer course; however the plaintiff realized that the wife had no intention of coming back to the matrimonial home. (j) After that incident, whenever the plaintiff went to the paternal home of the wife to take her back with the newborn baby, on every occasion, she outright refused to come back to the matrimonial home. Moreover, the husband was not even allowed to see his newborn baby. (k) Thereafter, each time the plaintiff had gone to the paternal house of the wife, on every occasion he was not allowed to see the baby on lame excuses. Once, when the plaintiff had gone to the paternal house of the wife, she along with her patents abused the plaintiff with filthy languages and the father of the wife suddenly attempted to beat the plaintiff with a stick. On that day, the wife along with their parents had warned the plaintiff not to try to come any further with the caution that if he tried, he would be driven out after beating. (I) After that incident the plaintiffs close relatives had gone to the paternal home of the wife and requested her to come back to the matrimonial home but on every occasion not only the wife but also her parents had abused them and even did not allow them to see the newborn baby. (m) In view of the abovementioned incidents, the plaintiff was eager to talk to the respondent for knowing her last decision about maintaining the matrimonial relationship and with that idea to meet her alone, he decided to see her at noon in her paternal house when her parents who were the working people would not be present at home. So on a day, when the plaintiff had gone to the paternal house of the wife, he found a motorbike, red in colour, stood in front of the house of the wife. So on a day, when the plaintiff had gone to the paternal house of the wife, he found a motorbike, red in colour, stood in front of the house of the wife. The plaintiff pressed the calling bell for a little but no one had come out. Again he pressed the calling bell for some longer period but no one came out. Thereafter, the plaintiff pressed the calling bell for a little longer period and at last, nearly after one minute and a half, the wife had opened the door. The plaintiff found that the dress of the wife was disorderly and her face and hairs indicated that just a little ago she had some physical relation with somebody. At first, the wife was very much puzzled to see the plaintiff and could not even talk for sometime and her face reflected her embarrassment. But after sometime, she could regain herself and started shouting by abusing the plaintiff and told him to immediately get out of the house, An altercation started for some minutes and at that time, the plaintiff found that a young gentleman had come out from the inner room and after seeing that person, the wife had requested him to save her from the plaintiff, as if, the plaintiff had gone there to take her away by force. The said person with a rude voice threatened the plaintiff to leave the place but the plaintiff retorted and demanded his identity. An altercation started for some moment, but the plaintiff restrained himself because at that time he realized what had been going on for the last two years. (n) After leaving the said house, while returning home suddenly the plaintiff had thought that he would meet the parents of the respondent and would demand their answer why they had cheated him by giving marriage of their characterless daughter who was physically involved with other person. So after passing some hours in his aunts house which was situated in close proximity, the plaintiff had again come to the parents house of the respondent. The parents of the respondent tried to avoid the plaintiff but ultimately on persistence of the plaintiff they refused to give any answer and stated that their daughter had right to do anything that she liked. The parents of the respondent tried to avoid the plaintiff but ultimately on persistence of the plaintiff they refused to give any answer and stated that their daughter had right to do anything that she liked. While such altercation had been going on, suddenly, the plaintiff heard the sound of a motorbike which had stopped before the said house. After hearing that sound, the wife along with the parents ran outside of the room and talked in a low voice to someone and after sometime, the plaintiff again heard the sound of the motorbike which indicated that the said motorbike had gone away. The plaintiff realized that the said person had again come but the wife along with her parents had cautioned him not to come. (o) After the aforesaid incident, the plaintiff realized the cause of his wifes not coming back since July, 1996 and lodged two diaries, one in Gorabazar Police Station where the wife resided on 2nd March, 1998 and the other, in Serampore Police Station on 1st April, 1998. (p) The plaintiff had subsequently come to know that the wife had joined service in the Post and Telegraph Department as Postal Assistant, Hence the suit. (4). The suit was contested by the wife by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and the specific defence of the wife may be summed up thus: - (a) She did not intentionally leave the matrimonial house. She delivered a female baby on 17th December, 1996 at North Point Nursing Home, Dum Dum. She left the matrimonial home on 5th November, 1996 with her husband after taking consent of her parents-in-law. So the question of desertion of the husband did not arise at all. (b) She was under the treatment of Dr. Dilip Sengupta and the baby was delivered under his care. She was always willing to live with her husband. (c) The husband on several occasions after the month of November, 1996 visited her fathers house at Dum Dum and he even spent nights. She never misbehaved with her husband so long she was in her matrimonial home. (d) The husband did not pay a farthing for the medical expenses of the delivery of the baby as well as maintenance of the baby. The husband also did not look after the wife and the baby. She never misbehaved with her husband so long she was in her matrimonial home. (d) The husband did not pay a farthing for the medical expenses of the delivery of the baby as well as maintenance of the baby. The husband also did not look after the wife and the baby. She never misbehaved with the husband or the other members of her family and it was the husband who did not care to take her back after the birth of the baby. (5). At the time of hearing of the aforesaid suit, the husband himself, his father, one of his neighbours, the husband of his aunt who allegedly went to the, house of the wife to bring her back and two other persons gave evidence in support of the petition for divorce while the wife alone deposed in opposing the claim of the husband. (6). The learned trial Judge, as indicated above, by the judgment and decree impugned hearing was pleased to decree the said suit on the ground of desertion and cruelty. (7). Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present first appeal. (8). Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the very outset, attacked the judgment appealed against on the ground that there was no specific finding of the learned trial Judge on the question of cruelty and that there was even no justification of arriving at the finding of cruelty from the materials-on-record. (9). Ms. Nandy next contended that the learned trial Judge erred in law in passing a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion by totally misreading the materials-on-record which indicated that case made out in the petition for divorce that the wife left the matrimonial home in the month of July, 1996 had not been established. Ms. Nandy asserts that it will appear from the evidence-on-record that on 5th November, 1996 her client came back to her paternal home for the delivery of the child and at that point of time, she was accompanied by her husband. According to Ms. Nandy, there was nothing abnormal in coming back to the paternal house for the delivery of the child about a month and a half before the date fixed for delivery. Ms. According to Ms. Nandy, there was nothing abnormal in coming back to the paternal house for the delivery of the child about a month and a half before the date fixed for delivery. Ms. Nandy contends that once it is established that the plaintiff had failed to prove the starting point of alleged desertion, there was no just reason for passing decree for divorce without arriving at any specific finding that there was continuous desertion for a period of two years before presentation of the petition for divorce. Ms. Nandy submits that her client joined the computer course in the year 1997 long after the birth of the child and she got the job in the year 1998 and at that point of time, her client transferred the ration-card from the address of the matrimonial home to that of her paternal home. By relying upon those facts, Ms. Nandy contends that in this case, the continuous period of desertion for two years prior to the presentation of the petition for divorce had not been proved. She, therefore, prays for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. (10). Mr. Bose, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, has opposed the aforesaid contentions advanced by Ms. Nandy and has contended that in the facts of the present case it has been well established that there was continuous period of desertion for more than two years prior to the presentation of the proceeding which was initiated about two years after the birth of the child though the wife left the matrimonial home in the month of July, 1996. (11). Mr. Bose further contends that although specific allegations were made by the husband as regards cruel behaviour of the wife in the presence of her parents, nobody has come forward to oppose those allegations. Mr. Bose further contends that in spite of specific allegation made in the petition of divorce that the father-in-law of the wife as well as the husband of the aunt of the husband were not permitted to see the child and were driven out from the house of the wife, and such fact have been established by the deposition of those two persons but the parents of the wife did not appear in the witness box to oppose such allegations. Mr. Mr. Bose further submits that even no allegation has been made by the wife against complaining about the behaviour of the husband or the parents-in-law in her matrimonial home and in such circumstances, the learned trial Judge rightly concluded that both the desertion and the cruelty on the part of the wife had been established. He, therefore, prays for maintaining the decree for divorce. (12). Therefore, the first question that falls for determination in this appeal is whether in the facts of the present case the desertion on the part of the wife for a continuous period of two years preceding the date of presentation of the petition for divorce has been established. (13). In the plaint, it is alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home in the month of July, 1996 and thereafter, once she came back to take her ornaments and left on the same day during the absence of the husband and thereafter, never came back. In the meantime, on December 17,1996 a female child was born while the wife was in her paternal house. The suit was filed on 17th November, 1998. (14). The defence, on the other hand, is that she, with the permission of her father-in-law and accompanied by her husband, left the matrimonial home for her paternal home on November 5,1996 with the object of giving birth to the child while staying in her paternal house. After the said date, the husband stayed and even spent night at her paternal home. She was always willing to come back after the birth of the child but the husband did not take her back. (15). The husband himself, his father, the husband of his aunt and three other persons have given evidence in support of the allegation of desertion asserting that the wife left in the month of July, 1996 and that in spite of repeated requests, she did not come back. It is the evidence of the plaintiffs father and that of the plaintiffs aunts husband that they went to the house of the wife to bring her back but they were driven away. The husband has gone to the extent of alleging that his father-in-law tried to assault him with a stick when he went to bring back his wife. It is the evidence of the plaintiffs father and that of the plaintiffs aunts husband that they went to the house of the wife to bring her back but they were driven away. The husband has gone to the extent of alleging that his father-in-law tried to assault him with a stick when he went to bring back his wife. In spite of all these pieces of evidence, neither of the parents of the wife came to the witness box to deny such allegation and to face cross-examination at the instance of the husband. The wife alone deposed denying all these facts and suggestions were given to the witnesses of the husband that their statements were false. It appears that no reason has been assigned by the wife for not examining her parents when specific allegations of ill-treatment were made against them. She has further admitted that she did not write any letter to the husband to take her back. It has been established from her own evidence that in the year 1998 she applied for change of the address of the ration-card from the address of her matrimonial home to that of her fathers house and that she started learning typing and attending computer course in the year 1997 and ultimately, got a job in the Postal Department of the Government of India in the year 1998. In answer to the question put to her in cross-examination, she stated that due to distance, she alone could not come back to her matrimonial home although such distance can be covered by a journey of about one hour and odd. It appears that she went to undergo training programme in connection with her service in Darbhanga alone after giving birth to the child and thereafter, was posted in different places. (16). It further appears from the evidence of the wife that she made no allegation of maltreatment of her husband or her other in-laws while she was staying in her matrimonial home. Thus, cruelty on the part of the husband or his relatives is not the ground of staying in her fathers house. We are unable to accept the submission of Ms. Nandy, the learned Advocate for the wife, that simply because the husband did not bring her back, the wife could not return to the husbands house. Thus, cruelty on the part of the husband or his relatives is not the ground of staying in her fathers house. We are unable to accept the submission of Ms. Nandy, the learned Advocate for the wife, that simply because the husband did not bring her back, the wife could not return to the husbands house. We have already pointed out that no letter was ever written by the wife or any of her parents asking the husband to take her back and even, the parents of the wife have also not come forward to make such allegations by figuring as a witness. (17). Taking into consideration the abovementioned facts, we find that the wife was determined not to come back to the matrimonial home and for that reason, immediately after the birth of the child, she started learning typing, joined computer courses, applied for the job and decided to transfer the ration-card to the address of the fathers house from the matrimonial home. Although Ms. Nandy tried to impress upon us that the husband failed to prove that the wife left the matrimonial home in the month of July, 1996 but she really left on November 5, 1996 we are not impressed by such submission for two reasons. First, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by so many witnesses for the husband on that question particularly when the parents of the wife are not coming forward to deny such fact. It appears that a question was put to the husband in cross- examination whether in the month of September, 1996, the day before the Biswakarma Puja, they together visited Digha and in answer, he told that he could not remember such fact. By referring to the aforesaid statement, Ms. Nandy strenuously contended that such statement should be construed to be an admission of the husband that they went to Digha in the month of September, 1996. It appears that the husband specifically stated in cross- examination that they went to Digha on honeymoon about two months after the marriage, meaning thereby, that they went there in the month of March, 1996. No suggestion was given to him controverting such fact. Even the wife in her evidence never alleged that they ever visited Digha in the month of September, 1996. No suggestion was given to him controverting such fact. Even the wife in her evidence never alleged that they ever visited Digha in the month of September, 1996. Such being the position, the said suggestion in cross-examination does not prove the fact that they visited Digha in the month of September, 1996 in the absence of any substantive piece of evidence to that effect. Secondly, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the wife really left on November 5, 1996, the suit having been filed on November 17, 1998, the period of desertion of two years preceding the presentation of the plaint has been established. We find that without any sufficient reason she withdrew herself from the company of the husband with determined intention not to come back. We have already pointed out that the appellant has not adduced any evidence of inflicting cruelty upon her in her matrimonial home justifying her decision not to come back. The learned trial Judge, in our opinion, rightly concluded that the husband was entitled to get a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion. (18). As regards the ground of cruelty, in our view, the materials-on- record sufficiently established cruelty on the part of the wife. It appears that for no fault on the part of the husband, he was deprived of the company of his wife. It has been proved that he was not even permitted to see the child and even his father was not permitted to visit the granddaughter and was abused when he visited the house of the wife. The father of the wife has not come forward to deny the allegation that he even went to the extent of beating the son-in-law with a stick in connivance with his daughter. Therefore, even if we hold that allegation of adultery with the person having red motorbike has not been sufficiently substantiated by other corroborative evidence, the ill-treatment inflicted towards the husband, an MBBS doctor, and his family members at the instance of the wife and her parents without any just cause is sufficient to grant a decree for divorce. The learned trial Judge, in our opinion, rightly passed a decree on the ground of cruelty in the facts and circumstances of the present case and we find no reason to interfere with the decree impugned. (19). The learned trial Judge, in our opinion, rightly passed a decree on the ground of cruelty in the facts and circumstances of the present case and we find no reason to interfere with the decree impugned. (19). It appears that the daughter is in the custody of the wife from the very birth and thus, at this stage, we do not propose to disturb such custody. However, the husband will be entitled to visit the daughter and will be permitted to talk to her exclusively for two hours once in every fortnight for the time being. Since both the parents are in service, we direct the husband to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/-a month for the maintenance and educational expenses of the daughter to be paid within seventh of every month with effect from the month of January 2009. This order of maintenance and right of visitation, it is needless to mention, is subject to modification in changed circumstances and future application for such modification should be filed in the learned Court below. The appeal is, thus, disposed of with the modified order of maintenance of the daughter by affirming the decree of divorce. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.