JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. 1. This First Appeal, at the instance of husband, in a Suit for divorce is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5th March, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge 13th Court, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in Matrimonial Suit No. 50 of 2001. The suit was dismissed. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree dated 5th March, 2005, this First Appeal has been filed. The facts pleaded in the plaint by the appellant are summarized as follows: On 17th January, 2000, the parties to the suit were married according to Hindu Rites and Customs and after "Boubath" ceremony was held on 19th January, 2000 with the wife the parties to the suit started residing as husband and wife at the matrimonial home. It is stated that an excursion was arranged by respondent No.2 at Puri on 1st June, 2000. The petitioner and the respondent No. 1 visited Puri and took a rented accommodation there. It is alleged in the plaint that the respondent No. 1 at night went to the room of the respondent No.2 (Asim Adhikari) and consumed foreign liquor and returned to the petitioner/plaintiff. On enquiry, petitioner came to learn that the respondent did not like him as an ideal husband and she would enjoy her life with respondent No.2 within a short period. After returning from Puri wife started to behave in a rude manner to the members of the family of the petitioner and further used to threat that she would commit suicide and put the petitioner and his family members to custody. She also used to abuse in filthy languages. 3. On 23rd April, 2001 the wife desperately tried to commit suicide by bringing liquid poison "Begon Spray". However, at the intervention of the mother of the petitioner/husband she was taken to the M.R. Bangur Hospital and thereafter shifted to a private nursing home and she was discharged on 26th April, 2001. At the time of discharge the members of the family of the husband received an advice from the nursing home to consult Psychiatrist. 4. On 30th April, 2001 the wife arranged a rented accommodation with the help of Ashim Adhikari respondent No.2 and thereafter husband and wife started to live at the said place. At the time of discharge the members of the family of the husband received an advice from the nursing home to consult Psychiatrist. 4. On 30th April, 2001 the wife arranged a rented accommodation with the help of Ashim Adhikari respondent No.2 and thereafter husband and wife started to live at the said place. Thereafter the husband became seriously ill on being torture both physically and mentally by the wife and the said Ashim Adhikari respondent No.2. During the tenure of his office, the office called the petitioner along with his parents to withdraw his salary for the month of March, 2001 in the office and at the dictate of the respondent No.2 he had to sign on a paper. The contains whereof were not known to him and further out of his salary of Rs.6,753 / - a sum of Rs.1,573 / - was handed over to the mother of the petitioner and the rest Rs.5,000/- was handed over to the wife. Since the petitioner was suffered from mental agony and he felt ill. In these circumstances, the suit was filed by the appellant. 5. The said suit was contested by filing the written statement by the wife thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint and the defence of the wife/respondent No. 1 herein may be summarized as follows: The wife categorically denied the allegations that she ever went to the room of Ashim Adhikari or consumed foreign liquor and came back to the room of the husband at dead night. On the contrary, it is stated that the wife was insulted from the very beginning and was mentally tortured from the beginning of the marriage and lastly was physically assaulted by the husband in many occasions. 6. It is further stated that the husband intentionally did not want to stay at the rented matrimonial house and further he did not pay the rent and the maintenance of the wife. On the contrary, the wife Stated that she was already ready and still is ready to continue with the marriage provided the husband behaves properly. The following issues were raised in the suit: 1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 2) as the marriage ceremony celebrated according to Hindu rites? 3) Was the petitioner husband a victim of physical and mental torture? 4) Was the O.P. wife addicted to drinking and of low moral fibre? The following issues were raised in the suit: 1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 2) as the marriage ceremony celebrated according to Hindu rites? 3) Was the petitioner husband a victim of physical and mental torture? 4) Was the O.P. wife addicted to drinking and of low moral fibre? 5) Is the petitioner husband entitled to get a decree of divorce? 6) To what other relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled? 7. At the time of hearing the husband Sri Mintu Banerjee, wife Smt. Karabi Banerjee, the mother of the husband and Smt. Bitan Adhikari deposed on behalf of the petitioner and his wife before the learned Trial Court. 8. The learned Trial Court after considering the materials placed before him and after analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties came to the conclusion that the husband had failed to prove that cruelty was perpetrated on him by the wife and for which he is not entitled to decree for divorce as prayed for. Hence, the issues decided against the husband/ appellant herein and the said matrimonial suit was dismissed on contest. It appears from records that the husband in his cross-examination has admitted which is recorded by the Court as follows: "He had good relation with his wife and their relation became strain since 1 1/2 a year". 9. Therefore, Court came to the conclusion that according to husband their relation became strait since middle of 2002. 10. In evidence the husband did not state that his wife ever threaten him to commit suicide. From evidence it further appears that he cannot also corroborate the fact that whether his wife consumed "Begun Spray" due to their torture.' The husband categorically admitted that he has voluntarily lived in a rented accommodation at Rabindra Nagar, Ramkrishna Pally and there was no pressure on him. Therefore, Court came to the conclusion as follows: "So, the case of the petitioner that he was forced to live in the rented house and was not allowed to visit his house, is totally false". 11. The Court also found the other allegation made by the husband could not be proved. 12. Therefore, Court came to the conclusion as follows: "So, the case of the petitioner that he was forced to live in the rented house and was not allowed to visit his house, is totally false". 11. The Court also found the other allegation made by the husband could not be proved. 12. The allegation of relationship between the wife and the respondent No. 1 also could not be accepted on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Court when the Court held as follows: "On the other hand, D.W.2, the sister of the respondent No. 1 and the wife of the respondent No.2, has categorically stated that her husband had no suspicious relation with the respondent No. 1. From the photographs taken at Puri which are marked Ext. A series clearly show as to how happy the petitioner and his wife was at Puri and the statement of P.W.1 that he has good relation with his wife clearly supports the same. There is no concrete or specific allegations regarding the adultery of his wife with the respondent No.2 and it is found that the petitioner has simply suspected the same which has got ho basis and that has not corroborated by any witness and got no support from the other circumstantial evidence." With regard to the lodging of any complaint against the husband by the wife before the police authorities is a false allegation and the learned Trial Court did not accept the allegation made against the wife after analyzing the evidence adduced before him. 13. It appears to us that the learned Trial Court has also analysed the documentary evidence placed before it and after careful consideration of the fact and circumstances of this case and the evidence on record refused to pass the decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner. 14. After considering the materials placed before us and after analyzing the evidence put forward before us we cannot found that the petitioner/ husband the appellant herein has been able to prove his case before the learned Trial Court. 14. After considering the materials placed before us and after analyzing the evidence put forward before us we cannot found that the petitioner/ husband the appellant herein has been able to prove his case before the learned Trial Court. We do not have any doubt in our mind on the basis of the material placed before us and after analyzing the evidence that the conduct of the wife does not come within the meaning of cruelty as stated in section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and further the meaning of cruelty as enumerated in several decisions of the Court. Hence, we do not find any reason to disturb the aforesaid decree refusing to grant decree for divorce in favour of the husband by the learned Trial Judge. Accordingly, we do not interfere with the decree so passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal is thus dismissed and we affirm the decree. 15. The question of permanent alimony, if applied by the wife before the learned Trial Court, will be decided by the learned Trial Court after hearing the parties. 16. Before we part we must keep it on record that we also requested the parties to reconcile amongst themselves which has failed. There will be no order as to costs. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties. Appeal dismissed.