ORDER : Ajit Singh, C.J. This is an appeal by the husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a suit for divorce, which has been dismissed. 2. The appellant-husband, Balo Ram Saikia was married to respondent-wife, Anima Saikia in the year 1984 whereafter 4 children (2 daughters and 2 sons) were born to her. The husband is working as Police Inspector in the State of Assam. The petition for dissolution of marriage was presented on 8.6.2007 by the husband. The allegation of the husband in the petition is that wife has been treating him with cruelty because he could not fulfill her demand for luxuries. The husband has also alleged that the wife did not willfully allow him to perform sexual intercourse with her and as a result of which, he had to forcefully execute his conjugal rights. The husband has further averred that the attitude of wife has been so hostile towards him that he had to leave family house in the year 2002 and live separately in a rented one. 3. The defence of the wife is that she did not desert the husband and it is he, who has left her and children, after the 4th child was born, because he was having illicit relations with another woman, with whom, he has now illegally re-married. The wife has also alleged that the husband has a daughter from the second woman and he has filed the petition for divorce mainly to deprive her and children of their legal rights. The wife has further averred that husband often used to return late night in a drunken condition and whenever she objected to this conduct and his illicit relation with another woman, he would treat her with cruelty both mentally and physically. According to wife, she was constrained to file complaint to the Women Legal Aid Cell, Guwahati due to which husband has been paying a meager amount as maintenance allowance, which is wholly insufficient to her and children. 4. Before the Trial Court, the husband examined himself, his brother Budheswar Saikia and Phulkan Sarma in support of the petition for divorce whereas in defence, wife examined herself and her son Sonmoni Saikia. 5. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, did not believe the husband that his wife either treated him with cruelty or had deserted him and dismissed the petition for divorce. 5. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, did not believe the husband that his wife either treated him with cruelty or had deserted him and dismissed the petition for divorce. The Trial Court has held that it is the husband, who has deserted the wife, because he has illegally re-married to another woman, from whom, he has a daughter and the wife is justified in protesting against such conduct of husband. 6. Having considered the evidence of the husband and also the evidence led by the wife, we are satisfied that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. This we say so, because the husband has admitted that he had left the house of wife and children in the year 2002 and since then he has been living separately in a rented quarter. The desertion is therefore by the husband and not by wife. According to the evidence of husband, the attitude of wife towards him has been hostile because he could not fulfill her demand for luxuries. The husband however could not give any specific instance of demand for luxury by wife. The allegation of husband that wife did not willfully allow him to perform sexual intercourse is also belied from the fact that she has given birth to his four children. On the other hand, wife has testified that husband has been having illicit relations with another woman against which she objected, but he, in a drunken condition, treated her with physical and mental cruelty. The wife has also deposed that the husband has left her and the children to marry another woman from whom he has now a girl child. According to the evidence of wife since it was not possible for her to sustain the maintenance of all four children, two of them went to live with the husband. Sonmoni Saikia is one of the 4 children. He was aged 16 years on the date of his evidence. This witness has testified that his mother (wife) is innocent and is victim of his father’s (husband) cruelty. Sonmoni has clearly deposed that his father often used to treat mother with cruelty and that he has remarried to another woman. Sonmoni has further testified that his one brother and sister went to live with their father but because they were treated with cruelty by that woman, they had to return back. Sonmoni has clearly deposed that his father often used to treat mother with cruelty and that he has remarried to another woman. Sonmoni has further testified that his one brother and sister went to live with their father but because they were treated with cruelty by that woman, they had to return back. Surprisingly, there is no cross examination by the husband on this evidence of his son Sonmoni. According to Sonmoni, father is paying only meager amount towards maintenance which is wholly insufficient to meet their basic needs. We find the evidence of Sonmoni against his father very natural, truthful and reliable. He has fully corroborated the evidence of mother (wife). In the fact situation of the case, the wife is justified if she did not cooperate with the husband and her conduct cannot be held as being cruel to him. 7. For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed.