JUDGMENT S.D. Anand, J.:-The appellant – husband applied for dissolution of his marriage on plea of cruelty and desertion. The appellant was nonsuited on both the counts. 2. The following facts are otherwise apparent from the record:- 3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.06.1970. One female child was born on 26.05.1973 out of their union. That female child got married on 09.12.1990. 4. The allegation of the appellant was that the respondent – wife used to insult him in the presence of his relatives and other family members; that the respondent would not cook food for him, and would also not attend to house-hold work, that she was quarrel some in nature and that she would frequently leave the matrimonial house unannounced. These allegations form the foundational premise of the plea raised by the appellant – husband qua cruelty. Insofar as the plea of desertion is concerned, the appellant alleged that the respondent left the matrimonial house on 27.10.1983 and has not returned to the matrimonial house thereafter. Several reconciliation endeavours made by the appellant, by taking panchayats, proved abortive. 5. As against it, the respondent – wife denied the allegations on point of cruelty and desertion. She alleged that the appellant – husband was cut up with her on account of her inability to deliver a male child. As against the timing of desertion averred by the appellant – husband, the respondent – wife alleged that she had, in fact, been turned out of the matrimonial house on 20.04.1993. 6. The trial proceeded on the following issues:- “1. Whether petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion? OPP 2. Whether petitioner refused to keep the respondent with him? If so to what effect? OPR 3. Relief.” 7. The learned Trial Judge recorded finding adverse to the appellant – husband under both the issues. 8. As none appeared on behalf of the parties to assist this Court, I have been through the Trial Court records. 9. After having been through the record in entirety, I find myself in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. The following observations shall support this view of mine. 10. There is controversy between the parties about the time up to which the respondent – wife was at the matrimonial house. 9. After having been through the record in entirety, I find myself in complete agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. The following observations shall support this view of mine. 10. There is controversy between the parties about the time up to which the respondent – wife was at the matrimonial house. The plea raised by the appellant – husband is that she left the matrimonial house on 27.10.1983. As against it, the averment made by the respondent – wife is that she was turned out of the matrimonial house by the appellant – husband on 20.04.1993. Both made self-serving statements in that context. The cue to the controversy is to be found in the statement of RW1 – Sunita Devi, who is none-else or other than the own daughter of the appellant – husband and also the respondent – wife. She testified on oath that her parents were living together at the time of her marriage which had taken place about four years ago (prior to 06.10.1994 i.e. the date on which her testimony was recorded at the trial). She is a married daughter of the parties. She has two children. She is in Government service. There is no understandable reason why she would depose falsely against her father in the context, particularly when she claims to have stayed over with her father even after the respondent – wife was turned out of the matrimonial house by the appellant – husband. She gave a very forthright and truthful statement even on the other points of controversy. Apart from testifying that the relationship between her parents was far from easy on account of inability on the part of her mother to bear a male child, she very fairly conceded that her mother had been beaten up by Promod (her husband’s brother’s son) and that her father was not present at that time. If she were to give a false deposition, she could very well have testified that her father too was privy to the belabouring of the respondent – wife at the hands of Promod aforementioned. 11. The appellant would move want the Court to believe that he had been to the respondent – wife on 08.11.1990 to request the latter to attend the marriage of their child RW1 – Sunita Devi but that the respondent – wife declined to do so. 11. The appellant would move want the Court to believe that he had been to the respondent – wife on 08.11.1990 to request the latter to attend the marriage of their child RW1 – Sunita Devi but that the respondent – wife declined to do so. As against it, the respondent – wife and also RW1- Sunita Devi categorically averred that the respondent – wife very much attended the marriage. While conceding, as correct, the suggestion that the marriage ceremony had been video-graphed, she clarified that her father’s elder brother and latter’s wife did not allow any frame in which the respondent – wife appeared. The appraisal of the evidence in entirety gives a clear impression that the respondent – wife had indeed been turned out of the matrimonial house on 20.04.1993. 12. In order to prove that he wanted to bring the respondent – wife to the matrimonial house, the appellant – husband examined PW2 – Ram Kishan, Sarpanch and PW3 – Rameshwar, Ex-Sarpanch. The former claimed to have accompanied the panchayat to the natal house of the respondent – wife on 08.11.1990. As against it, PW3 – Rameshwar claimed to have twice accompanied the appellant to the parental house of the respondent – wife. 13. While declining to place reliance upon the testimony of PW2 – Ram Kishan and PW3 – Rameshwar, the learned Trial Court observed that they had not uttered even a word about the resolution Ex.P4. Though it is factually correct that both these witnesses did not, at all, refer to any panchayat proceedings, it may be pointed out that Ex.P4 (which was tendered into evidence by the learned counsel for the appellant in his statement dated 22.09.1994), it does not actually purport to be a panchayat resolution. In fact, it purports to be a report which these witnesses and some others made to the police in the course of the investigation of a compliant which the respondent – wife had made against the appellant – husband. At the same time, there can be no dispute that this document cannot, at all, be read into evidence for want of proper proof. None of the signatories thereto proved that document. Though, PW2 – Ram Kishan is indicated to be a signatory to it, he did not, at all, make a mention of it in the course of his deposition at the Trial. 14. None of the signatories thereto proved that document. Though, PW2 – Ram Kishan is indicated to be a signatory to it, he did not, at all, make a mention of it in the course of his deposition at the Trial. 14. The appellant – husband does not, at all, appear to have been inclined to resume cohabitation with the respondent – wife. In the course of his testimony, he averred that the name of the respondent – wife was got deleted from the ration card in the year 1992. If the appellant had any inclination to resume cohabitation, there was no occasion for him to get the name of the respondent deleted from the ration card. It was for the appellant to adduce on record evidence to prove the averment made by him in the context of deletion of the name of the respondent from the ration card. The respondent had deserted him in October 1983. It was for the appellant to explain why did he wait before raising a plea for deletion the name till the year 1992. The fact that the name of the respondent was deleted in 1992 would be in consonance with the plea of the respondent that she was turned out of the matrimonial house only after the marriage of RW1 – Sunita Devi had been solemnized. In the light of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the view obtained by the learned Trial Court does not call for interference. Dismissed. ------------------