JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J.-Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent. 2. The instant First Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the judgment dated 11.5.2004 and decree dated 26.5.2004 passed by Sri Narendra Kumar Srivastava, 1st Additional District Judge, Gumla in Divorce Case No.2 of 2002 by which judgment the suit was decreed and marriage between the appellant-petitioner and respondent-opposite party was dissolved. However, the appellant has preferred this appeal since, the learned Additional District Judge, although, granted divorce, but in para 25 of his judgment directed the appellant-husband to allow the respondent-wife to remain in the house in which she is residing at present and the appellant-petitioner was further directed to give electricity, water and other facilities to the Respondent so that she may live in the house with the status of the petitioner till she is remarried. If, any report regarding any assault, mis-behaviour to the respondent is reported then the respondent will be at liberty to take legal action in accordance with law. 3. It is this observation against which the appellant has filed this appeal stating therein that the order is absolutely against law, since the appellant has filed application of divorce on the ground of cruelty and torture by the wife and even after grant of divorce, if she is allowed to live in the same house and continue to torture, it will amount to double injustice to the appellant. Moreover, he has further submitted that the respondent is living presently, admittedly in the joint family house where the appellant is residing with his mother and brother and the house belong to his mother. In that view of the matter, learned trial court should not have passed such unjust order and hence that part of the order is fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, Reeta Devi has appeared and also filed a cross-appeal challenging the decree of divorce and submitted that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish any cruelty on the part of the wife and as such the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is only fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-wife, Reeta Devi has appeared and also filed a cross-appeal challenging the decree of divorce and submitted that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to establish any cruelty on the part of the wife and as such the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is only fit to be set aside. He has further submitted that the ground of desertion does not apply in the instant case, since, even today and during the pendency of the case, respondent-wife was residing with the appellant-petitioner in his house. As such, the finding of the judgment of divorce is only fit to be set aside. 5. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidences on record, I find that the appellant-petitioner filed an application before the District Judge, Gumla u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was referred as Divorce Case No. 2 of 2002. The appellant-petitioner, Gopal Krishna Choubey stated that he was married with the respondent-opposite party, Reeta Devi on 30.4.1999 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Khunti and after solemnization of marriage respondent came to Gumla at Jawahar Nagar to the appellant-petitioner's house. But after 3/4 days she went back to her parent's house at Khunti. When she again came then she stated that she cannot prepare any food in his house and asked her husband to give the detail of his share in the property, so that the same may be sold and she will stay with him at Bombay or in any other big city and when the plaintiff refused then she stated that she will not allow him even to touch her body and without the consent of her husband and family members she left the house on 4.5.1999. It is stated that thereafter, she kept on roaming in different city like Bombay, Kolkata against the wishes of her husband. He also stated that while he was residing at Gumla, she always refused to cohabit with the petitioner, then the said behaviour of Respondent-wife was brought to tile notice of her father and it was impressed upon him that her behaviour is cruel towards the family members and him. Her parents assured to look into the matter. But, after complaint, she became more furious. Her parents assured to look into the matter. But, after complaint, she became more furious. Thereafter, she also made up her mind to commit his murder and she wrote two letters to her family members on 8.2.2001 and 9.2.2001 which was recovered from her (respondent) bed by the petitioner. Whenever, she was at Gumla, she used to say that she is a master of her will and she will do whatever she likes. It is also stated by the petitioner that other three sisters of the Respondent have left their husband and are living at their parents house and one of the sister is unmarried even at the age of 40. The petitioner has further stated that it is no more possible to live with the respondent seeing her cruel behaviour with him and to his family members. Accordingly, petitioner-appellant prayed for decree of divorce and asked the marriage may be dissolved. 6. It appears that the opposite party-respondent, wife appeared in the suit and filed her written statement stating therein that the allegation made in para 11 of the petition make out cause of action in the suit that she left the house immediately after her marriage on 5.5.1999 or that she misbehaved on 8.2.2001 and wrote letters dated 8.2.2001 and 9.2.2001 are all false and cooked up stories and they are denied. She denied that no relation of husband and wife was established between the petitioner and the opposite party. She stated that after her marriage when she came to the husband's house at Jawahar Nagar, Gumla, she stayed for 15 days and in accordance with the Hindu custom she went to her parents house after her first visit. She also denied the allegation made in para and stated that she never visited Kolkata, Bombay. In para 7, while refusing the allegation that she refused to cohabit with the petitioner, she made counter allegation that the petitioner started mental and physical torture and started demanding Hero Honda motorcycle and colour television from her parents which respondent was unable to bring and the appellant-petitioner started beating her and wrongfully confined her without food and water. She also alleged that heavy dowry was given at the time of marriage. She also stated that she always obeyed the orders and direction of the petitioner and his family members. She also alleged that heavy dowry was given at the time of marriage. She also stated that she always obeyed the orders and direction of the petitioner and his family members. She also stated that letters dated 9.2.2001 and 8.2.2001 were taken from her by force and coercion and the letters were dictated by the petitioner. In para 11, while denying the allegation she stated that in fact the petitioner has contracted some marriage at Ranchi in some temple and in order to throw her out of the house he has made false allegation. She stated that her behaviour is always normal with the petitioner and she is not willing to take divorce. 7. In view of the aforesaid pleading of the parties, the trial court framed three issues:- (i) Whether petitioner is able to prove the case of cruelty and desertion by the respondent by oral and documentary evidence or not? (ii) Whether on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and pleading of petitioner, petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce in his favour or not? (iii) Whether in case of grant of decree of divorce respondent is able to get back her cash and valuable articles given by the parents of the respondent to the petitioner as Stridhan or not? 8. It appears that learned trial court after considering the pleadings of the parties and considering the evidences on record finally came to a conclusion at para 22 of the judgment that since, it has been proved that the wife has committed cruelty upon the petitioner which are evident from her behaviour and letter written by her and as such granted the decree of divorce. Learned trial court also granted alimony of Rs. 1 lakh in favour of the wife and maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- till her remarriage and also allowed her to reside in the house. 9. Now, let us first consider the first issue as to whether petitioner is able to prove the case of cruelty and desertion as alleged by him against the wife. In order to prove the charges, the petitioner has examined 6 witnesses P.W. 1, Parasnath Das, P.W. 2, Pradeep Sharma, P.W. 3, Kamleshwar Mishra, P.W. 4, Vidyanidhi Sharma, P.W. 5, Gopal Krishna Choubey, Appellant himself, P.W. 6, Kishore Kumar Choubey. 10. In order to prove the charges, the petitioner has examined 6 witnesses P.W. 1, Parasnath Das, P.W. 2, Pradeep Sharma, P.W. 3, Kamleshwar Mishra, P.W. 4, Vidyanidhi Sharma, P.W. 5, Gopal Krishna Choubey, Appellant himself, P.W. 6, Kishore Kumar Choubey. 10. P.W. 6, Kishore Kumar Choubey, is the brother of the petitioner who has stated that Gopal Krishna Choubey is his brother who was married with the opposite party, Reeta Devi in April 1999. After marriage she came to Gumla and started living with them. As she came to the house she called her husband for opening the boxes and started asking him about his share in the property and said that after selling their share they will settle at Bombay, Delhi or any other big city and when Gopal refused to give any detail of his share which he was not knowing she stated that she will not allow her to touch her body and there will be no relationship of husband and wife between them. She started roaming as per her wish and she came to Gumla after one year and then again Gopal refused to leave Gumla and sell of his property, she again went back. Reeta Devi refused to cook -for the family and when his wife offered her food, she used to say that even dog does not eat such food in her house. Thereafter, his wife started giving uncooked rice and food articles to her. She started living separately in one room. When they called her brother then she asked him to go back. He further stated that she roams about late in the night which was dangerous for her and her family. She wanted to commit murder of her husband and as such this marriage should be dissolve. In his cross-examination he has stated that before marriage he had not gone to the house of Reeta Devi. The marriage was mediated by their uncle (phupha). He has stated in cross-examination that he was earlier not ready for any divorce between them, but when Reeta Devi started telling that she will take poison or she will commit the murder of her husband then he thought that it is better that they should separate. He stated that marriage was solemnized without any dowry just giving the usual utensils etc. in the marriage. He denied that any torture was made to Reeta Devi. 11. He stated that marriage was solemnized without any dowry just giving the usual utensils etc. in the marriage. He denied that any torture was made to Reeta Devi. 11. P.W. 5, the petitioner, Gopal Krishna Choubey has also stated in court that he was married with the respondent-Reeta Devi in April. 1999 and after marriage she came to Gumla and started residing in his house. After she came, her behaviour was very astonishing as she called him for opening the boxes and when he went to her room then she stated as to what is his share in the property and stated that he should sell his share then they will settle at Bombay, otherwise she will not allow him to even touch her body. After two days she went to her father's house on her own. Thereafter, only she came once and again demanded the share in the property and when he said that he cannot sell his property at Gumla, then she started fighting with his mother also and even assaulted her. He informed her brother, Deepak about the incidents and her brother asked her not to behave like that, but after that her behaviour become more violent. Again she left the house and came in the year 2001, but her behaviour was very different. Even while staying in the house she roamed about freely and when she wanted and she had sometime assaulted him also and stated that she will commit his murder. She has also written such letters addressed to her sister and brother. He has stated that her stay is dangerous to his life also. In his cross-examination, he also stated that the marriage was mediated by his uncle - (phupha) who happened to be the uncle of Reeta Devi also. In his cross-examination he stated that his sister and brother-in-law had only seen Reeta Devi before their marriage. He stated that when she demanded the list of his properties then he had informed this to his family members. In his cross-examination he has stated that Respondent-Reeta Devi herself admitted that she had gone to Bombay. He admitted in his cross-examination that he never stayed with the respondent as husband and wife and had no conjugal life with her. 12. In his cross-examination he has stated that Respondent-Reeta Devi herself admitted that she had gone to Bombay. He admitted in his cross-examination that he never stayed with the respondent as husband and wife and had no conjugal life with her. 12. P.W. 4, Vidyanidhi Sharma, who is lawyer of Gumla Bar Association, has stated that after the marriage of appellant with the respondent on 30.4.1999, both the Husband and Wife were not living happily. He had asked the Respondent many a times to change her behaviour, but she is a violent lady. Gopal told him that she wants him to sell of his share in the property at Gumla and wanted to go to Bombay. Both the Husband and Wife did not like each other and respondent-Reeta Devi even wrote letter to her brother to commit murder of her husband. In his cross-examination he has stated that Gopal's father, Rajnikant Choubey was respectable teacher of Gumla and one day Gopal's mother called him and when he went to her house, she told that she has been assaulted by Reeta Devi-Respondent and she was inside the closed room. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had seen the letters written by Reeta Devi. 13. P.W. 3, Kamleshwar Mishra has also supported the case of the petitioner-Gopal Krishna Choubey and stated that immediately after marriage in April 1999 when Reeta Devi came from Khunti to Gumla and told him that she started demanding his share in the property and wanted to settle at Bombay. He had also seen the• letters written by her in which she had stated that she will commit murder of Gopal. In his cross-examination he has stated that one week back, he had seen Reeta Devi roaming about in the market where she got entangle with a 'thelawala' and she was rebuking him. 14. P.W. 2, Pradeep Sharma also stated that he knows both the parties and after marriage on 30.4.1999, Reeta Devi-respondent stayed with her husband's house only for 5-7 days and then second time she came and again left her husband's house and went to Bombay. On inquiry he was told by Gopal that she wanted to commit his murder. In his cross-examination he stated that he knows the family of Gopal since, last 25 years. He had gone in the Barat also. On inquiry he was told by Gopal that she wanted to commit his murder. In his cross-examination he stated that he knows the family of Gopal since, last 25 years. He had gone in the Barat also. In his cross-examination he also stated in para 8 on court question that Gopal's mother and Gopal have told that they were also assaulted by Reeta Devi, who has got very high temper and openly roams about in the market without permission of anybody. 15. P.W. 1, Parasnath Das has also stated the same thing that after marriage with appellant, respondent-Reeta Devi came in the Appellant's house in the year 1999 and she left the house after four days and went to her father's house and when she came for the second time, she stayed for" one week and again left for her father's house. His house is just to the side of the house of petitioner, Gopal Krishna Choubey. He has stated that respondent's behaviour with her in-laws was very rough" and bad and without permission and information she used to go out and roam about and give threatening to commit the murder of her husband. In cross-examination at para 6 he has stated that he had seen both husband and wife fighting. 16. Thus, from the evidences of the petitioner's side it is abundantly clear that immediately after the marriage of the parties on 30.4.1999 their fight started immediately after Reeta Devi came to Gumla to reside in the house of petitioner-Husband. She demanded that petitioner should sell off his share in the property so that she may stay with him at Bombay and on refusal she left the house. Thereafter, her behaviour was always rough with her in-laws. 17. Now in the context of the evidences of the petitioner as discussed above, let us see what is the evidence of the opposite party. Opposite party, Reeta Devi has also examined 6 witnesses who are as follows:- (i) O.P.W. 1 Pushpa Devi, (ii) O.P.W. 2 Sanjukta Mahapatra, (iii) O.P.W. 3 Jayant Kr. Das, (iv) O.P.W. 4 Mani Devi, (v) O.P.W. 5 Deepak Kr. Tiwary, (vi) O.P.W. 6 Reeta Devi, apposite Party, herself. 18. Opposite party, Reeta Devi has also examined 6 witnesses who are as follows:- (i) O.P.W. 1 Pushpa Devi, (ii) O.P.W. 2 Sanjukta Mahapatra, (iii) O.P.W. 3 Jayant Kr. Das, (iv) O.P.W. 4 Mani Devi, (v) O.P.W. 5 Deepak Kr. Tiwary, (vi) O.P.W. 6 Reeta Devi, apposite Party, herself. 18. The O.P.W. 6, Reeta Devi in her statement has denied the allegation made and stated that after her marriage on 30.4.1999 when she came to Gumla she stayed for 2/3 days and as per the Hindu rites she went back to her father's house. She stated that in the marriage heavy dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs was given by her parents alongwith other utensils and when she came for the second time she stayed in the sasural for one months. Thereafter, her mama sasur brought her back to Khunti, but thereafter, her husband did not come to take her back to Gumla. She stated that behaviour of her in-laws during her stay was very bad. They never used to give food to her and they used to rebuke her. Due to their bad behaviour she is living in one 'Khaprail' room in her husband's house. Her rations are given by her brother. She denied that she had written letters to commit her husband's murder. She denied that she wanted that her husband should sell his share of the property and stay at Bombay with her. He also denied that she stated that if, he will not settle at Bombay, then she would not allow him to touch her body and she does not want divorce. In her cross-examination she stated that they are five sisters. Her elder sister is Gita Upadhyay, second one is Manju Tiwary, who is divorcee, third one is Mala Pandey and she is the fourth one and fifth and last sister is Seem a, who is unmarried. In her cross-examination when she was asked as to whether she had written in her written statement about giving 5 lakhs dowry then she stated that she does not remember. In para 9 of her cross-examination she stated that both letters which are said to be written by her have been written by her, under duress and pressure from the petitioner. But she stated that she made no complaint to police or anybody about the letters. In para 9 of her cross-examination she stated that both letters which are said to be written by her have been written by her, under duress and pressure from the petitioner. But she stated that she made no complaint to police or anybody about the letters. In her cross-examination she admitted that one of her sister is residing at Bombay and she is a divorcee. She denied that she had stayed for only 4 days after her marriage at Gumla and when this case of divorce was filed then she came to Gumla and staying there. She stated that her sister, Manju is working at Canara Bank at Bombay. She denied that her sister who reside at Kanpur had also divorced her husband. She also denied that her sister Mala has also divorced her husband and residing at Kanpur with her sister. 19. The other witness is her brother, O.P.W. 5, Deepak Kr. Tiwary who has stated that his sister, Reeta Devi was married with the petitioner on 30.4.1999 and he had come for the Tilak to Gumla alongwith his brother and relatives with utensils, clothes and two lakh rupees cash. He had given the money. Thereafter, 'aharbahar', was also done. Subsequently, he also stated that earlier 3 lakhs was given as dowry. When, Gopal Krishna Choubey, petitioner-appellant did not come for the bidai of his sister, then he brought his sister to Gumla and left her. He has also stated that the petitioner and his family members started torturing his sister and they were not giving her food. They used to cut her electricity connection. Thereafter, he was providing food etc. to his sister at Gumla. He has stated that his sister, Manju is a divorcee. He denied that he made any conspiracy to commit murder of Gopal. In his cross-examination he has stated that they had not given any dowry in the marriage of his sister who was married at Motihari to a boy in Air Force. He also admitted in his cross-examination that in the marriage of his sister who was married at Kanpur, they had given only 1,50,000/- in dowry. In his cross-examination he has stated that in Reeta Devi's marriage they had sold their land at Tamar which was 31/2 acres. The said land was sold in 1998 for Rs. 3,50,000/-. He also admitted in his cross-examination that in the marriage of his sister who was married at Kanpur, they had given only 1,50,000/- in dowry. In his cross-examination he has stated that in Reeta Devi's marriage they had sold their land at Tamar which was 31/2 acres. The said land was sold in 1998 for Rs. 3,50,000/-. At para 9 he has admitted that after marriage when Reeta Devi went back to her father's house then they waited for about one month for Gopal to come for Bidai and after 11/2 month they again made contact with Gopal and his family members. He denied that after 1999 Reeta Devi came to the house of Gopal for the first time in 2001 and during this period she was staying at Bombay and other cities. At para 11 he admitted that he had brought Reeta Devi to Gumla at 2002, but denied that she was brought to Gumla after this divorce case was filed. He also admitted in para 13 that after May 2002 he started giving ration to his sister at Gumla. 20. O.P.W. 4 Mani Devi stated that she works as made servant in the house of Reeta Devi at Khunti and her temperament is good. 21. O.P.W. 3 Jayant Kr. Das has stated that he had attended the Tilak ceremony of Gopal at Gumla and cash was also given at Tilak. He had also gone in the Barat to Khunti. He has stated that Reeta Devi is not a fighting lady. He has stated that after marriage Gopal with his relatives sent Reeta Devi to Khunti and left her there by saying that he will come for her Bidai. Subsequently, Reeta's brother brought her to Gumla. In his cross-examination he admitted that he is friend of Deepak, brother of Reeta Devi and today he has come from Khunti to give his evidence. 22. O.P.W. 2 Sanjukta Mahapatra has stated that she knows Reeta. She stayed separately in the house at Gopal Choubey at Jawahar Nagar, Gumla and cooks her food separately. She does her marketing also on her own and Gopal does not give any money to her. She always meet Reeta Devi in the market. She stated that Gopal has got no danger of life from Reeta Devi. In cross-examination she stated that she also got married in the year 1998, but divorced her husband after one year. She does her marketing also on her own and Gopal does not give any money to her. She always meet Reeta Devi in the market. She stated that Gopal has got no danger of life from Reeta Devi. In cross-examination she stated that she also got married in the year 1998, but divorced her husband after one year. She stated that she is living in D.S.P. Road, Gumla and she knows Reeta since, last 6 months. 23. O.P.W. 1 Pushpa Devi did not turn up for her cross-examination, hence her evidence was not considered by the trial court. 24. Thus, after going through the evidences of both the parties, it appears that immediately after the marriage the dispute between both Husband and Wife started and when the wife went back to her father's house she did not return after 1% months. The brother of wife, Reeta Devi, Deepak Kumar Tiwary, examined as O.P.W. 5 himself admitted in his cross-examination that she stayed in her father's house for 1% months and after that when Gopal did not come for Bidai, then he made inquiry from him. In para 10 he denied that between 2001 to 2002 she was roaming about, but admitted in para 11 that she came to Gumla in, January 2002 and he had gone to fetch her to Gumla and from May 2002 they gave her ration at Gumla. So it appears that admittedly after marriage she was not residing at Gumla and lastly after this case was filed by the petitioner on 25th January, 2002, then she was brought back by her brother to Gumla in 2002 January. She started living in one room separately and her ration were being provided by her brother. As far as the allegation of cruelty by the Respondent-opposite party, Reeta Devi is concerned, the petitioner witnesses have stated including P.Ws. 5 and 6 that immediately after her marriage when she came to her sasural, she started demanding the detail of the property about the share of her husband and wanted to stay with him at Bombay, otherwise she refused to live with him as husband and wife and thereafter she left for her father's house at Khunti. There is allegation that her behaviour with her mother-in-law and others was bad and sometimes she assaulted them also. Two letters exhibited by petitioner also marked as Ext.-1/A and Ext.-1. There is allegation that her behaviour with her mother-in-law and others was bad and sometimes she assaulted them also. Two letters exhibited by petitioner also marked as Ext.-1/A and Ext.-1. Ext.-1 written on 9.2.2001 is addressed to her sister Seema in which she has stated that she now wishes that her husband is murdered. In Ext.-1/A which was written to her brother Dipu and her mother dated 8.2.2001, she has stated that she has heard that her husband had contracted second marriage and she directed her brother to file a case against her husband or she will commit her husband's murder or would torture him to such an extent that he will live life like a dead man. The letters are written with regard to sister, brother and other family members and her claim that those two letters were written by her under force or coercion by the petitioner, cannot be accepted. 25. Thus, after considering the evidences, I also find that the petitioner and the opposite party never lived as husband and wife immediately after marriage, as per the petitioner due to cruel behaviour and high temper of the wife-O.P. and according to O.P.W. Nos. 5 and 6, brother and sister, due to bad behaviour and torture of the in-laws. Since, no earlier complaint of torture or demand of dowry was ever made by the O.P.-Reeta Devi or her brother O.P.W. No.5, Deepak Kr. Tiwary. In that view of the matter, their statement in court after filing of the divorce case that there was any torture or demand of dowry cannot be accepted. It also appears that they have cooked up a case of dowry also during trial since, in the written statement there is no averment that any demand of dowry was made by the petitioner or his family members. There is no allegation that 5 lakhs rupees was paid as dowry at the time of marriage and her brother, O.P.W. 5 admitted in his cross-examination that before her marriage they had sold the land at Tamar for Rs. 3.50 lakhs and earlier also no dowry was given to his sister who was married at Motihari to boy employed in Air Force and dowry of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was only given to another sister, who was married at Kanpur. In that view of the matter, it is not acceptable that they will spent Rs. 3.50 lakhs and earlier also no dowry was given to his sister who was married at Motihari to boy employed in Air Force and dowry of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was only given to another sister, who was married at Kanpur. In that view of the matter, it is not acceptable that they will spent Rs. 5 lakhs for a boy who was working as a ordinary lawyer at Gumla Civil Courts. Further, in her written statement at para 7, Reeta Devi alleged that there was demand of Hero Honda Motorcycle and Colour T.V. but, said allegations were also not proved. 26. Thus, from the evidences it appears that in fact it is the opposite party, Reeta Devi whose behaviour is rough and cruel with her husband and in laws and in fact after her marriage she never stayed with her husband at Gumla. In that view of the matter, learned trial court had rightly granted divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. I find no merit in the cross-appeal filed by the Opposite Party, Reeta Devi and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 27. As far as the appeal filed by the appellant, Gopal Krishna Choubey, Husband with regard to the direction of the trial court given in para 25 of the judgment allowing Reeta Devi, wife to stay in he house of her husband's father at Gumla in one room where she is residing is concerned, I find that since the Respondent-Reeta Devi does not want to leave Gumla, in that view of the matter, although, it is lot proper after divorce to allow the wife to reside in the house which does not belong to her ex-husband rather it belongs to her in-laws, but till the husband arranges at least one room residence for his divorced wife at Gumla, she will be allowed to live in that house and if the petitioner, Gopal Krishna Choubey arranges one room rented house for her at Gumla, he will file a petition for the same before the trial court and trial court will issue necessary direction to respondent-Reeta Devi to vacate the one room residence in the paternal house of Gopal Krishna Choubey, so that parent's of Gopal can live peacefully in their house. Other direction with regard to the grant of monthly maintenance till her re-marriage and alimony granted by the trial court are also confirmed and the appellant-husband is directed to make payment accordingly. 28. With the aforesaid alteration in para 25 of the impugned judgment of the trial court, the order is confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is allowed in part.