JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, C.J. 1. It is said that the marriages are fixed in the heaven but it would be true to say those are broken on the earth. The husband-appellant desirous of getting a decree for divorce has come to the Court with a submission that the wife was leading an adulterous life, she was treating the husband and his parents with cruelty physically and mentally and as there had been no reunion or co-habitation between the parties after a decree for judicial separation was passed, the ties between the parties be snapped and they be let free of their wedlock which is unnecessarily burdening them. 2. The undisputed facts are that on an earlier occasion in the year 1992 the husband filed Title Suit No. 56 of 1992 for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, however, on 24-7-1993 the husband made a prayer for withdrawal of the said suit. The application for withdrawal was allowed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala with further direction that the husband would not be entitled to any order from the Court to get a liberty to file a fresh case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that the husband persistent in his attempt to get either a judicial separation or a writ of divorce again filed Title Suit No. 02 of 1994 for judicial separation. It appears that the said suit proceeded ex parte against the respondent-wife. The decree accordingly was granted in favour of the husband on 29-8-97 by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala. It appears that on the strength of the ex parte decree for judicial separation, the husband filed Title Suit (Divorce) No. 52 of 2000 against the wife before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. At the same time he also claimed that because of non co-habitation or non reunion between the parties after the grant of decree for judicial separation in view of Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act he was entitled to a decree. 3. The notices were served upon the wife, she appeared in the Court and filed her written statement. At the same time he also claimed that because of non co-habitation or non reunion between the parties after the grant of decree for judicial separation in view of Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act he was entitled to a decree. 3. The notices were served upon the wife, she appeared in the Court and filed her written statement. Immediately after receiving the notices of the present suit No. 52 of 2000 the wife made an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act so also for the setting aside the ex parte decree granted in Title Suit (Judicial Separation) No. 02 of 1994. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court. But however on a revision, the said rejection was set aside and the High Court in Civil Revision No. 67 of 2003 vide its order dated 21-8-03 remanded the matter back to the first Court with a direction to decide the application in accordance with law. 4. The husband in his plaint had submitted that the parties were Hindus and in accordance with Hindu rites they entered into the marriage ceremony and tied the wedlock out of which a daughter was born. The petitioner contended that the wife all through had been careless in discharge of her domestic work, she was obsessed and adamant and she had no sense of respect towards the husband or the parents of the husband, she was behaving in rough manner and was not showing any respect to anybody. The husband also asserted that the wife was earning little more than husband therefore also she was neglecting her domestic duties and was also denying the husband his matrimonial status. It was also contended and pleaded that the wife had developed some illicit relation with a third person and that was clear from the fact that even after the office hours, the wife was coming late to the matrimonial home, she was seen in company of a third person and late in the night she was talking on telephone with that person detailing the enjoyment of sex. It was also contended that as there had been no reunion or co-habitation after the grant of the decree for judicial separation, the said fact also provides a foundation for divorce. It was lastly contended that the parties were living separately since 10th November, 1991 and that there had been no co-habitation. 5. It was also contended that as there had been no reunion or co-habitation after the grant of the decree for judicial separation, the said fact also provides a foundation for divorce. It was lastly contended that the parties were living separately since 10th November, 1991 and that there had been no co-habitation. 5. The wife in her written statement pleaded that the allegations made by the husband were absurd, those were insulting and the husband, in fact, was trying to undermine the reputation, respect and honour of the wife. It was also submitted that the wife never treated the husband or his parents with cruelty. According to her, the husband was misbehaving with the wife and was not treating her properly so also was making absurd allegations. In so far as question of desertion was concerned, it was contended that the wife was not living separately of her own accord but, in fact, she was forced to live separately because the husband was not ready and willing to live with the wife probably under the wrong impression that the wife was unchaste. 6. In regard to availability of the ground under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, it was contended that finality of the decree for judicial separation is under cloud because the wife had moved an application for setting aside the said ex parte decree which was obtained by fraud. 7. The learned trial Court on the strength of the pleadings raised as many as five issues. The plaintiff in support of his case beyond examining his ownself examined two witnesses while the wife examined her ownself and also examined one witness. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff was maintainable. He failed to prove that the wife was living in adultery, the husband also failed in proving that the wife was treating the husband and her parents-in-law with cruelty. The Court also observed that the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in the suit for judicial separation was set aside by the High Court therefore, the same was not maintainable. On basis of the said findings and the premises aforesaid, the learned Court below dismissed the suit. The Court also observed that the order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge in the suit for judicial separation was set aside by the High Court therefore, the same was not maintainable. On basis of the said findings and the premises aforesaid, the learned Court below dismissed the suit. The appellant is now before us with a submission that the evidence led by the plaintiff was not properly appreciated and in any case the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce. In the alternative, it was also submitted that parties are living separately for nineteen years or more and the marriage is broken irretrievably then this Court by dismissing the appeal should not add to the plight of the appellant who is ready and willing even to give some compensation to the wife or to the daughter who is living with the mother. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court and a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to contend that in a case where the parties are living separately for long many years then the Court should talk of the reality look with straight vision and grant a decree of divorce. It was also contended that the order passed by the High Court in the revision petition filed by the wife was a nullity and therefore this Court in its appellate jurisdiction should hold that the order passed in the revision petition being nullity would not revive any rights in favour of the wife to contest the application filed under Section 10(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act or in the alternative under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the allegations made by the husband in relation to unchaste conduct of the wife were absurd and if on basis of these allegations the wife reacted or retorted, the conduct of the wife would not come within the mischief of cruelty. It is also submitted that in a case like present, the adulterer or the paramour of the wife was required to be named and he was also required to be joined as a party. It is also submitted that in a case like present, the adulterer or the paramour of the wife was required to be named and he was also required to be joined as a party. However, in the present case, neither the details of the paramour have been given nor he was joined as a party, the submission is that such vague allegations cannot pave the path of the appellant to obtain a decree for divorce. In so far as question relating to order passed in the revision petition is concerned, it was contended that the said order upon the parties is binding. If the appellant was aggrieved by the said order then he was required to challenge the same before the Supreme Court. In relation to the availability of the ground under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, it was submitted that if the decree for judicial separation is clouded because of the application for setting aside the same on the ground of fraud then the said decree would not provide any ground in favour of the husband. 9. We have heard the parties at length and have perused the complete records. 10. The appellant Jyotishwar Sen while examining his ownself in support of his case had also examined Mr. Phan Bhusan Paul (P.W. 2) and Smt. Laxmi Debbarma (P.W. 3). Supporting the pleadings raised in the plaint the appellant stated before the Court that the wife was returning home late in the night, she was seen with a third person and was also talking about sex on telephone. However, at this stage, it will be necessary to note that the details of the paramour was not given nor he was made party. The requirement of law is to join the paramour as a party so that the said paramour can come before the Court and say that allegations made against him are absurd and at the same time the wife also can prove that the allegations of illicit relation between the wife and the said person are absolutely illegal. During the course of argument learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that despite knowing the details of the paramour he did not make him a party respondent because the petitioner/appellant-husband was facing a serious danger to his life. During the course of argument learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that despite knowing the details of the paramour he did not make him a party respondent because the petitioner/appellant-husband was facing a serious danger to his life. The arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant unfortunately have no foundation as the appellant nowhere stated nor pleaded that he was facing danger to his life therefore he was not giving the details of the paramour. Assuming for a minute that the husband was facing danger to his life therefore he did not detail the grounds about identification of the paramour then too the husband was required to being on record positive evidence to impeach the chastity of the wife. On certain loose allegations that the wife was coming late in the night or she was seen with somebody in our considered opinion would not prove that the wife was living a unchaste life or was living an adulterous life. 11. The question relating to cruelty was sought to be proved through the statements of P.W. 2 Phani Bhusan Paul and P.W. 3 Laxmi Debbarma. They simply stated before the Court that they heard the abuses from the wife to the husband. What was the reason of their fight and why the wife was exchanging some abuse to the husband is not detailed by these witnesses. The witnesses prima facie appear to be unbelievable witnesses because they being the neighbours of the present appellant have readily come to the Court to oblige him. At this stage, we would be justified in observing that if the husband is impeaching the chastity of the wife and is making absurd and unfounded allegations against the conduct of a woman then a woman would be entitled to react, retaliate, and retort. If the husband's allegations are that the wife was living a unchaste life and the further allegation is that he narrated the facts before the wife, then in reply to such absurd allegations if the wife reacted and retorted it would be absolutely natural. What of a woman, if the allegation of adultery and of bad conduct are made against a man then such a person would also react. No person would readily agree to an allegation made against the conduct or against the chaste life. What of a woman, if the allegation of adultery and of bad conduct are made against a man then such a person would also react. No person would readily agree to an allegation made against the conduct or against the chaste life. In our considered opinion, the husband has failed in making out a case for divorce on the foundation of adulterous life of the wife or on the ground of physical or mental cruelty. 12. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the wife had deserted the husband in November, 1991 and she did not return back to her matrimonial home therefore a decree on the ground of desertion as provided under Clause (ib) of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act should be granted. It is to be seen from the records that the wife had delivered a girl child and immediately thereafter the husband, with a sense of authority, started making allegations against the wife and immediately thereafter on 21-12-1992 filed a suit for judicial separation. If the husband had certain grounds against the wife on strength of desertion, cruelty and adulterous life he could have filed a suit for divorce. The husband would not have filed a suit for judicial separation. After 1992, the husband was not looking back at the wife rather he was dragging the wife to the Court into the litigations. The first suit (Title Suit No. 56 of 1992) was withdrawn by the husband under order dated 7-8-1993. If the said suit was withdrawn on 7-8-93 and since thereafter the parties are living separately then on the same cause of action which persuaded the husband to file a suit in 1992 he could not have filed the title suit for judicial separation bearing No. Title Suit 02 of 1994, in the year 1994. According to the Order XXIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure if a suit is withdrawn without reservation of any liberty then on the same cause of action the husband would not be entitled to file another suit. However, this observation we are simply making because the learned Counsel has asked us to give a finding on the question of desertion. From the conduct of the husband it would clearly appear that from December 1992 he is not ready and willing to live with the wife. However, this observation we are simply making because the learned Counsel has asked us to give a finding on the question of desertion. From the conduct of the husband it would clearly appear that from December 1992 he is not ready and willing to live with the wife. If such is the conduct of the husband then he cannot come to the Court and say that the wife had deserted the husband. 13. Insofar as the decree under Section 13(1A) of Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, in our opinion the Court below was little unjustified in observing that the order passed by the learned trial Judge was set aside by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. However, if the observations made by the learned trial Judge are taken into their true perspective it would only mean that the order rejecting the wife's application for setting aside the ex parte decree was set aside by the High Court. If the matter regarding setting aside the ex parte decree is pending consideration then no finality is attached to such a decree especially when it is contended by the wife that the decree was obtained by playing fraud. On the ground as pleaded in the plaint, we do not think that the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce. The Court below on basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on records, in our considered opinion was absolutely justified in dismissing the suit. 14. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, in the matter of Durga Prasanna Tripathi v. Arundhati Tripathy AIR 2005 SC 3297 submitted that if the marriage is irretrievably broken then there would be no use compelling the parties to live together and the Court should make every endeavour to break the marriage ties. The facts in the matter of Durga Prasanna Tripathy (supra) were altogether different. There it was proved before the Court that the parties had developed an absolute disliking for each other and despite that the wife on one side and the husband on the other were contesting litigation. In paragraph 29 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that in the three cases considered in the said judgment disclosed that reunion was impossible. In paragraph 29 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that in the three cases considered in the said judgment disclosed that reunion was impossible. The Court also observed that it was a matter of record that dislike for each other was burning hot. In the present matter, undisputedly the dislike is one way traffic. The husband asserts that he does not like the wife because she is unchaste. Unfortunately, on any imaginary foundation if the husband develops a disliking for the wife then the husband cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. It is not the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he wife prior to 1992 was living an unchaste life. If prior to 1992 the wife was living an adulterous life then the husband should have pleaded the said ground in his earlier petitions. 15. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli AIR 2006 SC 1675 to contend that the endeavour of the Court should be to bring an end to the marriage which does not survive and where the parties are unnecessarily suffering. In the said matter again the facts were totally different. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that if the marriage has irretrievably broken then only the Court should pass a decree. In paragraph 96 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court further observed that the Government should take into consideration to make a law that irretrievable breaking of marriage should also provide a ground for divorce. 16. A judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Gurnam Singh v. Smt. Satwant Kaur reported in AIR 2007 Punjab and Haryana 79 was pressed into service. In the said judgment, the learned Judges of Punjab and Haryana High Court placed their heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Durga Prasanna Tripathy AIR 2005 SC 3297 (supra) to observe that where the marriage is irretrievably broken then the Courts should put an end to such marriage ties. 17. In our opinion, the said judgments would not help the appellant because the husband if is allowed to contend all that, then that would be giving an opportunity to the husband to take advantage of his own wrong. 17. In our opinion, the said judgments would not help the appellant because the husband if is allowed to contend all that, then that would be giving an opportunity to the husband to take advantage of his own wrong. The husband since 1992 is trying to run away from the wife for the reason best known to him, but the wife all through had been contending that she is loyal to the husband and loyal to the core and therefore does not want divorce from the husband. The submission that the wife is obsessed because she is earning more money or she is obstinate in her behaviour in our considered opinion would also not provide any ground to the husband against the wife because as a Hindu wife she is still saying that she is ready and willing to live with the husband. The conduct of the wife in fact would put a nail into the submissions of the husband when he says that the wife is obsessed and is not ready and willing to live with the husband. 18. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a judgment of Gauhati High Court in the matter of Kalyan Neog v. Rashmi Rekha Hazarika Neog, reported in 2010 (1) GLT 364 to contend that on the ground of cruelty the husband would be entitled to a decree for divorce. Insofar as the principles laid down in the said judgment are concerned, there can be no doubt but a judgment would be a judgment on the facts. In the said matter, the High Court after scrutiny of the evidence available on the records came to the conclusion that the husband was successful in proving that the wife was disrespectful, she was ill treating the parents of the husband, she was refusing to perform matrimonial obligations and she had obsessive inclination to stay separately from old and ailing parents of the husband and she also thought that she was only a care taker of the family. Simultaneously she was lodging false complaints of demand of dowry against the family. If such were the facts and the Court found that the facts were proved then a decree on such foundational facts certainly could be granted. However, in the present matter, we are unable to hold that the husband has made out a case for grant of a decree for divorce. 19. If such were the facts and the Court found that the facts were proved then a decree on such foundational facts certainly could be granted. However, in the present matter, we are unable to hold that the husband has made out a case for grant of a decree for divorce. 19. It was also contended as observed earlier that the husband is ready and willing to pay some lump sum amount to the wife so that marriage of the daughter who is now of marriageable age is conveniently performed. In our opinion the award of some money to the daughter for her marriage would be no solace to the wife nor it can be taken to be a conciliation for snapping the marriage ties. 20. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and for the reasons aforesaid we are unable to hold that there is any scope for interference in the matter. 21. The appeal deserves to and is dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) only to be paid to the wife. 22. Let a decree in terms of this judgment be framed by the Registry. Records of the Court below be sent back. Appeal dismissed