JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This appeal is by the husband against the judgment dated 20.4.2012, whereby his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘Act’) has been dismissed. 2. Facts in short are these. Appellant – Subir Kumar Dey and Respondent No.1 - Joya Dey were married on 6.7.1999, where after; Joya Dey gave birth to a male child on 13.9.2000. The petition for dissolution of marriage was presented on 20.1.2001. The allegation of Subir Kumar Dey in the petition is that Joya Dey not only deserted him, but she also had an extra marital affair with one Pankaj Rai (Respondent No.2). Joya Dey denied both the allegations and stated that she is a victim of cruelty by Subir Kumar Dey and it is he, who has deserted her. The trial court disbelieved the case of Subir Kumar Dey and dismissed his petition for divorce. According to the trial court, Subir Kumar Dey has grossly failed to prove the ground of desertion by Joya Dey and even her extra marital relation with Pankaj Rai (Respondent No.2). 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have reached the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed. Subir Kumar Dey has admitted in his evidence that on 13.9.2000 Joya Dey delivered a male child in the hospital, from where, on being discharged on 19.9.2000, she went to her parental house and never came back to him. On the other hand, Joya Dey says that after delivery of child on 13.9.2000, Subir Kumar Dey forced her to go to her parental house on a false pretext that there was no one in his house to take care of the child. The record reveals that Joya Dey after her marriage with Subir Kumar Dey on 6.7.1999 gave birth to a male child on 13.9.2000. Joya Dey was discharged from the hospital on 19.9.2000 from where she went to her parental house. And, on the next date, i.e. 20.9.2000, Subir Kumar Dey slapped her with a legal notice for coming to his house. Not only this, as mentioned above, he filed the petition for divorce on 20.1.2001 alleging desertion by Joya Dey. Joya Dey was discharged from the hospital on 19.9.2000 from where she went to her parental house. And, on the next date, i.e. 20.9.2000, Subir Kumar Dey slapped her with a legal notice for coming to his house. Not only this, as mentioned above, he filed the petition for divorce on 20.1.2001 alleging desertion by Joya Dey. Apparently, Subir Kumar Dey and Joya Dey, after their marriage on 6.7.1999, lived together upto 19.9.2000, on which date, Joya Dey was discharged from the hospital, from where she left for her parental house for care of the child and Subir Kumar Dey filed the petition for divorce on 20.1.2001 alleging desertion i.e. only after 5 months of the separation. Under Section 13(1) of the Act, husband or the wife is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party is deserted for a period not less than 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The period of 2 years had admittedly not completed after Joya Dey started living separately from Subir Kumar Dey on the day he filed petition for divorce. The trial court therefore did not commit any illegality in holding that marriage cannot be dissolved between them on the ground of desertion by Joya Dey. 4. Another ground of extra marital affair taken by Subir Kumar Dey for divorce has also rightly been rejected by the trial court. Section 13(1) of the Act does not contemplate an extra marital affair of either husband or wife as a ground for divorce. Under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act husband or wife is entitled for decree of divorce if after the solemnization of marriage other party had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse. Subir Kumar Dey has neither pleaded nor proved Joya Dey having voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than him. It is true that Subir Kumar Dey has produced certain letters purported to have been written by Joya Dey to prove her relations with another person. He claims to have recovered these letters from the bed of Joya Dey. We fail to understand if these letters were really written by Joya Dey in the name of another person how Subir Kumar Dey could have recovered them from her bed. The letters would normally be in the custody of person to whom Joya Dey had addressed. He claims to have recovered these letters from the bed of Joya Dey. We fail to understand if these letters were really written by Joya Dey in the name of another person how Subir Kumar Dey could have recovered them from her bed. The letters would normally be in the custody of person to whom Joya Dey had addressed. Subir Kumar Dey has also filed some photographs of Joya Dey with another person. These photographs are apparently prior to his marriage with Joya Dey and the photographs also do not suggest her having extra marital affair. Therefore, Subir Kumar Dey does not get any help from the letters and photographs relied upon by him. 5. For these reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/- (Two Thousand) which shall be payable by Subir Kumar Dey to Joya Dey within 45 (forty five) days from today.