JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, in allowing an application filed by the Respondent for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 2. The Respondent had filed an application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, alleging therein that he had married the Appellant on 11.7.2000 in Laxmi Narayan Temple, Sector-14, Rourkela, according to Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, they started their conjugal life at Sector-1, Rourkela. From the beginning, the Appellant started suspecting Respondent on each and every issue and she being a quarrelsome lady used to pick up quarrel with the Respondent without any cause. The Appellant used to misbehave the widow mother of the Respondent. On being protested she used to threaten to commit suicide. It was also alleged that on 28.7.2002 the Appellant mercilessly assaulted the Respondent's sister and her children, and, when the Respondent protested, she left for her parents place in July, 2002. All attempts for conciliation having failed the parties agreed for divorce and a decree of divorce was executed on 9:8.2002. Even after execution of such deed, the Respondent convened a meeting on 28.1.2004 at Latihkata for conciliation but the Appellant flatly refused to join, rather showed her inclination to stick to divorce. Again another deed was executed for divorce in the house of the brother-in-law of the Appellant. There being no hope of re-union the Respondent filed an application for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The Appellant resisted the petition by filing a written statement denying the allegations made by the Respondent. Her specific case was that she was being tortured for non-fulfilment of dowry demand and she had been driven out from the matrimonial house from 18.10.2003 for non-fulfilment of dowry demand. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Judge, Family Court, framed three issues. On consideration of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Judge, Family Court, found that the Appellant was showing cruelty and torture to the Respondent which became intolerable. So far as the allegation of desertion is concerned, the trial court did not accept the same. However, on the ground of cruelty the prayer for divorce was allowed. 3. On consideration of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Judge, Family Court, found that the Appellant was showing cruelty and torture to the Respondent which became intolerable. So far as the allegation of desertion is concerned, the trial court did not accept the same. However, on the ground of cruelty the prayer for divorce was allowed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the desertion having not been proved and there being no material to support the pleading of cruelty, the decree for divorce should not have been granted. Learned Counsel also drew attention of the Court to the depositions of all the witnesses examined in course of trial. Learned Counsel for the Respondent refers to certain paragraphs of the resolution to substantiate his claim that there was nothing with regard to desertion and cruelty on the part of the Respondent. 4. We have carefully perused the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties before the trial court. P.W.1 is the Respondent himself. He has specifically stated that a month after the marriage the Appellant insisted to leave separately from other family members, and due to her insistence he retained a quarters in Sector-1 on rent. Even though they were staying in separate house she was neglecting him by not taking food and also did not show respect to his mother and always misbehaved her mother. He has stated in his evidence that she was always misbehaving his brother and whenever he was returning from duty she used to pick up quarrel with him without any cause. She insisted him for purchase of fridge, TV and two-wheeler, and, when he expressed his inability to purchase all this, she having picked up quarrel attempted to commit suicide to entangle him and his family members in criminal cases. This evidence of P.W.1 finds corroboration of the evidence of P.W.3 to a large extent. P.W.3 in his deposition has also stated that the Appellant used to pick up quarrel with the Respondent and his. family members and she never liked the family members to stay in the house. She frequently picking up quarrels and on one day she took poison and this witness made her to vomit. He also stated that the Appellant used to give threat to the Respondent saying that she would put them all inside the bar by committing suicide. 5. family members and she never liked the family members to stay in the house. She frequently picking up quarrels and on one day she took poison and this witness made her to vomit. He also stated that the Appellant used to give threat to the Respondent saying that she would put them all inside the bar by committing suicide. 5. In view of such nature of evidence, we are of the view that the trial court was justified in holding that the conduct of the Appellant amounts to mental cruelty and the Respondent having suffered mental cruelty is entitled for divorce on that ground alone. So far as desertion is concerned, the trial court found that there was no desertion. But, we find from the evidence of the Appellant herself that since October, 2003 she is living with her parents and she voluntarily left the matrimonial house. She having voluntarily left the matrimonial house in October, 2003, we fail to understand as to how the trial court came to a conclusion that the evidence with regard to desertion is lacking. Be that as it may, the Respondent having successfully proved the allegation of cruelty, the leaned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, was justified in granting decree of divorce. 6. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed