JUDGMENT : RAVI RANJAN, J. I have heard the parties and perused the record of this appeal. 2. This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria in Matrimonial Suit No.14/2007 instituted by the respondent no.1 by which the court below has dissolved the marriage of the respondent no.1 and the appellant by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. However, a finding has been recorded that allegation of adultery against the appellant with any person including the opposite party nos.2 and 3, i.e., the respondent nos.2 and 3 could not be proved and, as such, no order has been passed against them. 3. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed the aforesaid matrimonial case for annulment of his marriage with the appellant no.1 which was solemnized in the year 1996 in accordance with the Hindu rites. It is alleged in the plaint that, right from the beginning itself, the opposite party-appellant no.1 had shown her unhappiness towards the marriage as if it was solemnized against her will. A few instances have also been recorded in the plaint by which she had publicly shown her unhappiness. It has further been alleged in the plaint that the marriage in fact could not be consummated as the opposite party no.1-appellant never agreed for the same. Allegation has also been made regarding her inclination towards one Anil Kumar who happened to be the junior working with her father who was a lawyer at Begusarai. It is also alleged that she was never ready to lead a conjugal life with the plaintiff and, to defame him, she started practicing as a lawyer in the year 2000. She used not to sit at the place where the petitioner was sitting in the Advocate Association. The plaintiff further alleges that he almost left his practice in view of such behaviour of his wife but upon intervention of his well-wishers he again started practicing as a lawyer. Further allegation in the plaint is that the opposite party no.1-appellant came in contact with the opposite party-respondent no.2 Sh. N. K. Kund who was posted in the Telephone Department and both were seen walking together in the market and she even used to go out of Khagaria with him. Further allegation in the plaint is that the opposite party no.1-appellant came in contact with the opposite party-respondent no.2 Sh. N. K. Kund who was posted in the Telephone Department and both were seen walking together in the market and she even used to go out of Khagaria with him. The aforesaid fact became a matter of gossip in the petitioner’s village which was also not tolerable as the plaintiff?s father was a renowned and reputed lawyer and his grand father was a well known personality of the locality. Further allegation is that due to her influence upon the opposite party-respondent no.2, he managed to engage her as counsel for the BSNL. Though minimum requirement for such engagement was 10 years practice as a lawyer but within 1-2 years she was given such assignment. It is alleged that the opposite party no.1- appellant went away on 15.03.2003 to Begusarai never to come back to her matrimonial house rather she used to come to Khagaria for legal practice from Begusarai itself and since then the petitioner is leading a deserted life. It is also alleged that the opposite party-respondent no.1 had influenced his younger brother Prince Kumar, i.e, the opposite party-respondent no.3 also and had tried to create disruption in the family. She had left her matrimonial house and began to live at Begusarai and also took a house situated at Station Road, Khagaria on rent and started practicing with the opposite party-respondent no.3 as her junior. Both used to work together in the day time and in the evening she used to come back to Begusarai. Further allegation is that at the instance of the wife, he was insulted in Chitragupta Nagar Police Station and she also started creating unlawful obstructions with respect to the properties of the family with the help of the opposite party-respondent no.3. Thus, the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the marriage was never consummated and her behaviour was cruel and the wife has also deserted him which became the cause of action for institution of the case. 4. The opposite party-defendants filed their respective written statement separately. The wife has denied the allegations made in the plaint and has stated that she was enjoying peaceful and happy conjugal life during the stay in her “sasural”. She has denied that her father had any junior advocate in the name of Anil Kumar. 4. The opposite party-defendants filed their respective written statement separately. The wife has denied the allegations made in the plaint and has stated that she was enjoying peaceful and happy conjugal life during the stay in her “sasural”. She has denied that her father had any junior advocate in the name of Anil Kumar. She has also stated that she had good relation with her husband and his family members and relatives. She used to go to Begusarai only with the permission of her father-in-law who was karta of the family. In fact, she completed L.L.B. with the consent of her father-in-law who had paid all the expenditures for obtaining certificate/licence from the Bar Council, Patna, Bihar and, thereafter, she joined practice as Advocate at Khagaria. In fact, she used to sit on the table where several respectable members of the Bar used to sit with the consent of the petitioner. She was appointed as Advocate of the BSNL, Khagaria By D.E.T. (A & P) Sri Banke Bihari Singh. She has also stated that she is enrolled as Advocate at both the places, namely, Khagaria and Begusarai and defendant (opposite party)- respondent no.3 was working as her junior. She has stated that she hired a chamber at Kachahari Road, Khagaria for doing practice with full dignity. She use to visit Begusarai also for consultation with her father who happened to be a Senior Advocate at Begusarai but she always used to live at Sanhauli at her matrimonial house. The opposite party no.2 has also filed written statement refuting the allegations and alleged relationship with the opposite party-defendant no.1 and has stated that he did not have any role in appointment of the opposite party-appellant as Advocate of BSNL. The opposite party (defendant) - respondent no.3, who happens to be the younger brother of the petitioner-plaintiff-respondent no.1, has filed his written statement stating that he was living in the house at Station Road since his father was alive and in fact his father gave all the papers of that house and allotted the same to him for his residence and for continuing with legal practice due to disturbance created by the plaintiff at Sanhauli residence. He has denied other allegations except that he worked as a junior with the opposite party (defendant no.1 – appellant). He has denied other allegations except that he worked as a junior with the opposite party (defendant no.1 – appellant). He claims that he demanded partition as the petitioner-plaintiff wanted to grab all the lands of joint family. 5. It appears that the efforts were made for reconciliation between the petitioner (plaintiff) - respondent no.1 as well as the opposite party (defendant no.1)- appellant but the same could not bear any fruit. 6. Upon consideration of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication by the court below. (i) Is the suit as framed, maintainable? (ii) Has the petitioner got any valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation? (iv) Has O.P. No.1 Seema dealt with cruelty with her husband petitioner Suman Kumar Sinha? (v) Has O.P. No.1 Seema deserted her husband petitioner Suman Kumar Sinha since 31.8.2002 ? (vi) Whether O.P. No.1 Seema had illicit relations with any person other than her husband petitioner or not? (vii) Is the petitioner entitled for the decree, as claimed for? 7. The court below after consideration of evidence led on behalf of the parties has come to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff has proved that the wife’s behaviour has been cruel and she has deserted the petitioner since 31.8.2002 and, as such, issue nos.4 and 5 have been decided in his favour. So far the issue no.6, i.e., with respect to illicit relations of the opposite party (defendant no.1) with any person other than her husband is concerned, the same has not been found to be proved, however, the suit has been decreed on the point of cruelty and desertion by the wife. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner- plaintiff – respondent no.1 has miserably failed to prove the issue of cruelty and desertion. He has raised a question that in view of lack of any examination-in-chief with respect to the allegation of cruelty and desertion, the entire allegations made in the plaint with respect to that falls flat as he did not have any courage to produce himself for cross-examination on such issues. He has raised a question that in view of lack of any examination-in-chief with respect to the allegation of cruelty and desertion, the entire allegations made in the plaint with respect to that falls flat as he did not have any courage to produce himself for cross-examination on such issues. It has merely been stated in the examination-in-chief that the allegations made in the plaint are correct which cannot be considered to be a testimony by him in support of his allegation as he did not state anything in his examination-in-chief on affidavit in terms of Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the allegation however may be grave, cannot take place of evidence. If nothing has been stated in the examination-in-chief then the defendants are not required to cross-examine such witness on such issues as by not stating anything the deponent has failed to produce himself for cross-examination on those issues. That apart, learned counsel has analyzed the entire evidence led by the plaintiff in this regard to demonstrate that even other witnesses could not prove the issue of cruelty and desertion also. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 has submitted that in view of the evidence led by the plaintiffs witnesses and further in view of the lack of any cross-examination of the plaintiff-petitioner-respondent no.1, who has examined himself as PW 7, establishes the case of the plaintiff. 10. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, in my considered opinion, following points fall for adjudication in the present appeal:- (i) Whether the Statement made on affidavit by PW 7 in view of the provisions contained in Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC stating that the matrimonial case has been instituted by him and the statement made in the plaint are true and correct which have been read over and understood by him and after that having put his signature in Hindi, would be sufficient as his testimony being his examination-in-chief in terms of the aforesaid provision read with Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ? (ii) Whether there was sufficient statement in the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff, who has been examined as PW 7, on the issues of cruelty and desertion so that he could have been cross-examined on those issues? (ii) Whether there was sufficient statement in the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff, who has been examined as PW 7, on the issues of cruelty and desertion so that he could have been cross-examined on those issues? (iii) Whether otherwise also, the petitioner (plaintiff)-respondent no.1 has been able to prove his case regarding cruelty and desertion by wife? Issue Nos.(i) and (ii) : 11. Issue Nos. (i) and (ii), being intertwined, are being considered together. 12. Section 137 of the Evidence Act defines the examination in-chief as the examination of witness by the party who calls him. Cross-examination is the final examination of such witness by the adverse parties. Prior to the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure brought by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, a witness was examined in-chief by producing him in dock, where, he used to state the relevant facts in support of the pleading of the party who has called him as witness and that was being recorded by the court. However, after the aforesaid amendment in the C.P.C., a new procedure for recording of evidence has been introduced under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC as follows:- “4. Recording of evidence.-(1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along with affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court. (2) The evidence (cross-examination and reexamination) of the witness in attendance, whose evidence (examination-in-chief) by affidavit has been furnished to the Court shall be taken either by the Court or by the Commissioner appointed by it: Provided that the Court may, while appointing a commission under this sub-rule, consider taking into account such relevant factors as it thinks fit: (3) The Court or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall record evidence either in writing or mechanically in the presence of the judge or of the Commissioner, as the case may be, and where such evidence is recorded by the Commissioner, he shall return such evidence together with his report in writing signed by him to the Court appointing him and the evidence taken under it shall form part of the record of the suit. (4) The Commissioner may record such remarks as it thinks material respecting the demeanour of any witness while under examination: Provided that any objection raised during the recording of evidence before the Commissioner shall be recorded by him and decided by the Court at the stage of arguments. (5) The report of the Commissioner shall be submitted to the Court appointing the commission within sixty days from the date of issue of the commission unless the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing extends the time. (6) The High Court or the District Judge, as the case may be, shall prepare a panel of Commissioners to record the evidence under this rule. (7) The Court may by general or special order fix the amount to be paid as remuneration for the services of the Commissioner. (8) The provisions of rules 16, 16-A, 17 and 18 of Order XXVI, in so far as they are applicable, shall apply to the issue, execution and return of such commission under this rule.” 13. A learned Single Bench of High Court of Bombay in Harish Loyalka Versus Dileep Nevatia [LAWS (BOM)-2014-4-45] has opined in a decision taken at original side that the object of amendment of Order XVIII Rule 4 was to ensure that there should be speedy trial by ensuring that the Courts time is not wasted in recording lengthy examination-in-chief. However, the question as to whether the reiteration of the plaint would be sufficient examination, has to be argued in negative as, by leading evidence a witness states regarding the matters or the events that are relevant to his personal knowledge but that cannot be statement in nature of legal submissions, arguments and pleadings. The word by word reiteration of the plaint cannot take place of evidence because the witness has to give his statement on the particular issue, fact or event. If there is verbatim reproduction of pleadings, submissions and arguments then that has to be kept out of the scope of the cross-examination otherwise the consequences would be unimaginable. In yet another decision of a Single Bench of Kerala High Court in Sugunan V. Joseph [2009(1) Kerala Law Times 160] it has been held that a mere statement by the plaintiff in his chief-examination reiterating the case put forward by him in the plaint cannot be taken as proof. In yet another decision of a Single Bench of Kerala High Court in Sugunan V. Joseph [2009(1) Kerala Law Times 160] it has been held that a mere statement by the plaintiff in his chief-examination reiterating the case put forward by him in the plaint cannot be taken as proof. However, in the present case, the plaintiff has even not reiterated his statement made in the plaint in his chief-examination. In fact he has not made any statement on the contentious issues at all rather has merely made a statement that all the statements made in the plaint are correct. That would, in my view, mean that he did not have any courage to come up with specific statement by way of leading evidence in his chief-examination on the point of cruelty and desertion so that he could be cross-examined on those issues by his adversary. In S. Prasanna Kumar V. R. Saraswathi [AIR 2009 Karnataka 109], a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has also deprecated such type of examination-in-chief which are nothing but replica of plaint of the petitioner. It has gone to record its displeasure observing that unfortunately most of the Advocates are not stating the case of the parties properly and in a mechanical manner examination-in-chief is being typed repeating the averments made in the pleadings as a result of which the plaintiff-petitioner even does not state various instances which according to him caused physical or mental cruelty. Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly lays down that burden of proof in suit or proceeding lies on the person who would fail if no evidences at all were given on either side. Section 103 lays down that burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. The Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Aziz Ahmad [2009(2) PLJR (SC) 131] has held, though on different sets of fact and context, that the burden to prove a particular fact is always on the person who alleges the same. The aforesaid cardinal principle has a firm footing till date. 14. The Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Aziz Ahmad [2009(2) PLJR (SC) 131] has held, though on different sets of fact and context, that the burden to prove a particular fact is always on the person who alleges the same. The aforesaid cardinal principle has a firm footing till date. 14. In the case in hand the petitioner-respondent no.1 has made allegations in his plaint regarding ill-behaviour of the wife causing mental cruelty upon the husband. He has also stated that he is living in desertion since 15.03.2003 but while being examined in-chief he has not made any specific statement. The aforesaid cardinal principle has a firm footing till date. 14. In the case in hand the petitioner-respondent no.1 has made allegations in his plaint regarding ill-behaviour of the wife causing mental cruelty upon the husband. He has also stated that he is living in desertion since 15.03.2003 but while being examined in-chief he has not made any specific statement. Relevant passages from his examination-in-chief on affidavit are extracted as under for better appreciation: 'kiFk&i= eSa lqeu dqekj flUgk is0 Lo0 enu eksgu iz0 mez djhc 43 o"kZ lkŒ lUgkSyh Fkkuk fp=xqIr uxj [kxfM+;k ftyk [kxfM+;k /keZ fgUnw jk"Vªh;rk Hkkjrh; 'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gw¡ %& 1- ;g fd eSa mDr okn dk vkosnd gw¡ mDr rykd okn esjs }kjk rS;kj djk;k x;k gS rykd okn esa of.kZr lHkh rF; lR; ,oa lgh gS rykd okn esa nkf[ky vkosnu i= dks i<+dj le> dj eSa viuk fgUnh esa gLrk{kj cuk;k gw¡ ;g ogh gLrk{kj gS tks esjs }kjk rykd vkosnu i= ij cuk;k x;k gSA 2- ;g fd lwpuk dk vf/kdkj ds vUrxZr Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM dk;kZy; nwj lapkj ftyk izca/kd csxqljk; ls esjs }kjk ekaxh x;h lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij dk;kZy; nwjlapkj ftyk izca/kd csxqljk; vius i=kad VhŒMhŒ,eŒ@csxq@,&59@vkjŒVhŒvkbZŒ@08&09@105 fnukad 26-9-08 }kjk eq>s lwpuk miyC/k djk;k x;k ftl ij fouksn dqekj flag eaMy vfHk;ark ¼iza0 ,oa eks½ dk;kZy; nwj lapkj ftyk izca/kd csxqljk; dk gLrk{kj gS ftls eSa igpkurk gw¡A 3- ;g fd lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds vUrxZr Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM dk;kZy; nwjlapkj ftyk izoa/kd csxqljk; ls esjs }kjk ekaxh xbZ lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij dk;kZy; nwj lapkj ftyk izca/kd csxqljk; vius i=kad VhŒMhŒ,eŒ@csxq-@,&59@vkjŒVhŒvkbZ0@08&09@104 fnukad csxqljk; 26-9-08 }kjk eq>s lwpuk miyC/k djk;k x;k ftl ij fouksn dqekj flag MhŒ ¼,Œ ,oa ihŒ½ dk;kZy; VhŒ MhŒ ,eŒ chŒ,lŒ,uŒ,yŒ dk gLrk{kj gS ftls eSa igpkurk gw¡A 4- ;g fd lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds vUrxZr Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM dk;kZy; eq[; egkizca/kd nwj lapkj fcgkj lfdZy iVuk }kjk esjs }kjk lwpuk ekaxh xbZ ftl vk/kkj ij eq>s i=kad ,lŒVhŒ@vkjŒVhŒvkbZŒ ,sDV@2005@,lŒdsŒ flUgk@359 fnukad tuojh 20@2009 }kjk eq>s lwpuk miyC/k djkbZ xbZ ftl ij vkjŒ,uŒ pkS/kjh dks y?kq gLrk{kj lgk;d egkizoa/kd nwj lapkj ¼izŒ½ dk gLrk{kj gSA ftls eSa igpkurk gw¡ ,oa tsŒ ohŒ tSu lgk;d funsZ'kd lkeku ¼ilZ½ dk gLrk{kj gS ftls eSa igpkurk gw¡A ;g fd esjk mijksDr c;ku lR; ,oa lgh gS bldk dksbZ Hkh va'k >wBk ugha gSA 'kiFk dŸkkZ gŒ@& lqeu dqekj flUgk 15. Perusal of the aforesaid affidavit discloses that he has merely proved his plaint and also proved certain documents which have been provided to him by the different authorities of BSNL, Begusarai which have been exhibited as Ext.1 series which in my considered opinion cannot be considered as a proper examination-in-chief on the contentious issues or allegations made in the plaint requiring cross examination by adversary on such issues. Even there is no reiteration of the statements made in the plaint. It simply appears that the witness had tried to run away or was scared of cross-examination, therefore, he refrained himself from stating anything on the issues for adjudication rather has made a bald statement that everything written in the plaint is correct. Thus, since the witness who also happens to be the plaintiff/petitioner failed in a manner to get himself examined in-chief, there was no requirement at all for the opposite party-defendant to cross-examine him on those issues as they were essentially required to be proved by the plaintiff himself specially the suit being a matrimonial one in which the husband was seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 16. Thus, having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, both the issues stand decided against the respondent no.1 and in favour of appellant. Issue No.(iii) : 17. Now, when the husband himself miserably failed to prove his case in a divorce case on the ground of cruelty and desertion, the question would be whether other witnesses examined by him have been able to prove that or in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, whether their testimony was sufficient for granting a decree of divorce on such grounds. From perusal of the entire evidence led by the plaintiff and also by the defendants, I am of the view that the petitioner-plaintiff witnesses have not been able to establish the same. The matrimonial issues are essentially within a family matter, therefore, the most reliable and effective witness would be either the members of the family or the close relatives or even to some extent distant relatives or the friends. The matrimonial issues are essentially within a family matter, therefore, the most reliable and effective witness would be either the members of the family or the close relatives or even to some extent distant relatives or the friends. Other witnesses may be good for the purpose of supporting the evidence led by the plaintiff or for its corroboration but the plaintiff himself having failed in doing so, the witnesses other than family members, close relatives or close friends would not be worth reliance in matrimonial matters. P.W. 1 Md. Jasimuddin states that he knows the parties and his family and has stated that he has hired a place in the Station Road which belonged to the father of the petitioner for his business and after the death of his father, he gives rent to the mother of the petitioner-plaintiff. He has stated regarding the conduct and character of the wife stating that she used to roam around with the aforesaid opposite party no.2, Mr. N. K. Kund and even in the absence of the opposite party no.3 both of them used to go at his residence at Station Road and stayed there for 2-3 hours and he also alleges that the opposite party no.1 used to visit opposite party no.3 also and used to go back at 9-10 p.m. and used to come back in the morning. However, his entire statements get demolished by his admission that the aforesaid opposite party no.3 had filed police case against him and has also filed protest petition in that case which has been brought on record as Ext.3 by the petitioner-plaintiff himself. The document shows that the protest petition has been filed by the opposite party-respondent no.3 in 6 Khagaria (Chitragupta Nagar) P.S. Case No.445/2006 and one of the adversary at serial no.3 is Jasimuddin who had examined himself as PW 1. The aforesaid protest petition having been filed on 27.09.2006 and PW 1 having been examined as a witness on 11.07.2008, i.e., much after such case and protest petition, obviously cannot be held to be a trust worthy witness and that apart, he has stated mostly regarding the alleged illicit relation of the opposite party-respondent no. l with the opposite party nos.2 and 3 which was found to be not proved by the court below and there is no cross objection having been preferred against such finding. l with the opposite party nos.2 and 3 which was found to be not proved by the court below and there is no cross objection having been preferred against such finding. So far other witnesses are concerned, they are neither friends nor are close relatives of the family. PW 5 appears to be hearsay evidence and is not worth reliance. PW 6 appears to be an Advocate in Khagaria Civil Court. However, he has admitted in his deposition that he is an accused under Section 376/511 of the IPC in which he has also remained in custody. 18. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid witnesses are not worth reliance as independent witnesses on the issue of cruelty and desertion in the absence of such evidence led by the petitioner-plaintiff himself. They might have come in aid to the evidence led by the plaintiff but in its absence they cannot be considered to be trustworthy for proving the aforesaid issues on behalf of the plaintiff. Admittedly, none of the close relatives or the family members have been examined by the plaintiff. When a question was put to the petitioner-plaintiff in cross-examination he has stated that he is not going to examine any of the family members or relatives. Though he has denied that none of them is willing to come to support him but he could not disclose any reason for not producing any one. He has also stated in the cross-examination that he did not remember any date or month of any dispute with the opposite party rather he remembers only the year. He has stated in his pleading as well as in his cross-examination that he has visited his sasural twice in the year 1996, thereafter, he has never gone there. Now a question would arise, if there was some problem in the marriage, why he did not discuss it with his family members or his in-laws. Even if it assumed for the moment that the wife deserted him in the year 2003 but it does not appear that he had made any effort to bring her back. He has nowhere stated in specific forms as to what efforts were made by him for saving his marriage. Even if it assumed for the moment that the wife deserted him in the year 2003 but it does not appear that he had made any effort to bring her back. He has nowhere stated in specific forms as to what efforts were made by him for saving his marriage. From perusal of the judgment delivered by the court below it appears that while dealing with the issues of cruelty and desertion as issue nos.4 and 5 treating as what has been stated by the husband to be correct, he has not cared to discuss the evidence led by the opposite party. The reliance upon Ext. 2, which is a sale deed executed by one Manju Devi in favour of his wife Seema whereby a property was purchased by the wife in Begusarai on 14.06.2007, would not prove desertion even if the name of the husband has not been disclosed in the sale deed rather the name of father of the opposite party no.1 has been disclosed because the same has been executed after institution of the case on 02.04.2007. The pleading may perhaps lead to a conclusion that the opposite party-wife was educated lady of independent mind but there has been miserable failure on part of the petitioner-respondent no.1 to prove the case of the cruelty and desertion. The court below should have kept in mind the changing perception of cruelty in matrimonial cases observed by the Apex Court in Shobha Rani V. Madhukar Reddi [A.I.R. 1988 SC 121 at page 123] which has been quoted in paragraph 20 of another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kumar V. Julmi Devi [2010 AIR SCW 1564]. Relevant passage therefrom is extracted as under for better appreciation. “20. It will be necessary to bear in mind that there has been a marked change in the life around us. In matrimonial duties and responsibilities in particular, we find a sea change. They are of varying degrees from house to house or person to person. Therefore, when a spouse makes complaint about the treatment of cruelty by the partner in life or relations, the court should not search for standard in life. A set of facts stigmatized as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. A set of facts stigmatized as cruelty in one case may not be so in another case. The cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic and social conditions. It may also depend upon their culture and human values to which they attach importance. We, the judges and lawyers, therefore, should not import our own notions of life. We may not go in parallel with them. There may be a generation gap between us and the parties.” 19. I regret that the court below does appear to have kept the 19 aforesaid in mind and has completely forgotten that if the plaintiff himself does not prove his case in his examination-in-chief then his boat is destined to sink. It may appear from the plaint, as has been observed by the court below also, that there has been irretrievable breakdown of marriage between the petitioner-respondent no.1 and opposite party no.1-appellant but that not being a ground for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage cannot be dissolved on such issue especially when the case of the wife is that she is continuously living at her matrimonial house and the allegation of desertion could not be proved by the husband. In above view of matter the issue no. (iii) also stands decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent no. 1. 20. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree granting divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty by wife is quashed and set aside. However, there would be no order as to cost. Ramesh Kumar Datta, J : I agree