JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Z. Hussain, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 22.12.2015 and decree dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur in Title Suit (Divorce) Case No. 60/2011, whereby, the petition filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed on the ground that the appellant as the petitioner, had failed to prove the grounds which he had taken for seeking divorce against the respondent. The appeal is stated to have been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, instead of under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As a statutory right the appeal is also available under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and this appeal has been preferred availing the said statutory right to appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, the mere defect in quoting the wrong provision would not have any affect to consider the appeal on merits. 3. It is apposite to mention the averments and contentions, in brief, made by the appellant in his petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. The appellant is a resident of Tezpur, District - Sonitpur and he is a businessman by occupation, having a pharmacy at Mission Chariali, Tezpur. During the last part of the year 2008, the appellant stated to have come in contact with the respondent through common friends at Guwahati. The respondent was a resident of Guwahati at that time. In course of time, a relationship developed between them and they used to communicate with each other through various modes of communication. After certain point of time, the respondent volunteered to come to Tezpur to meet the appellant as well as family members of the appellant and accordingly, she, in the early part of the year 2009, came to Tezpur from Guwahati and spent two nights at the house of the appellant. During that time, the mother of the appellant was alive. Apart from his mother, the appellant has an unmarried sister. During her stay, the respondent expressed her desire to marry the appellant to which the appellant had agreed. During that time, the mother of the appellant was alive. Apart from his mother, the appellant has an unmarried sister. During her stay, the respondent expressed her desire to marry the appellant to which the appellant had agreed. When the appellant asked the respondent about the manner in which the proposal of marriage had to be carried forward, the respondent had stated that the matter was to be furthered through her eldest brother-in-law and sister, as her other family members which included her widowed mother and three unmarried sisters, were against the marriage. Thereafter in April, 2009, the respondent s eldest brother-in-law and sister came to Tezpur and agreed for the marriage which was to be held only at Tezpur, according to them. Accordingly, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised at Sri Halleswar Temple, Tezpur on 17.06.2009 and a reception was also held on that day. The entire expenses of the marriage and reception were borne by the appellant and the same were attended only by the eldest brother-in-law and the sister from the respondent s side. Nothing was given from the bride s side in the marriage. It is contended by the appellant that after only two days from the marriage, the respondent started showing her true colours and on 19.06.2009, the respondent told him that she needed to go to Mumbai to join her service at a private company as she had been receiving repeated phone calls from them. Because of such strange behaviour of the respondent, the atmosphere at the matrimonial house became tense and disturbed. The appellant and his mother somehow could persuade the respondent not to leave them. The respondent though agreed not to leave, started to behave strangely and decided to sleep separately, thereby, deprived the appellant from having any kind of sexual relationship with her since 19.06.2009. The respondent started to pick up quarrel with the appellant and his mother for no apparent reason and they were abused, insulted and humiliated by her, thus, resulting in mental cruelty. Though his mother advised him to take the respondent to her parents and to explain the difficulties created by the respondent, the appellant was not in a position to go to his in-laws house, as before marriage he never came to know about her mother and other sisters. Though his mother advised him to take the respondent to her parents and to explain the difficulties created by the respondent, the appellant was not in a position to go to his in-laws house, as before marriage he never came to know about her mother and other sisters. Because of the coldness and lack of affection on the part of the respondent and her disinclination to play the role of a wife, the appellant suffered extreme mental pain and agony. He stated that the respondent s decision not to have a child was the reason behind her refusal to have any sexual relationship, thereby, leaving the marriage unconsummated. Because of her staying in the matrimonial home like a guest by exchanging a very few words with the appellant, his ailing mother, his sick sister or their maid servant or the visitors to his house like neighbours and relatives, nobody could gather any courage to question the respondent s abnormal behaviour and the relationship between the respondent and the wife remained fictional. 4. The appellant asserted that on 29.06.2009, the respondent declared that on 30.06.2009, she would leave for Guwahati and true to her words, she left the appellant s house for Guwahati with all her personal belongings, after giving warning to the appellant not to go to the Court seeking dissolution of the marriage. While so leaving, the respondent told him that it was she who would decide when the marriage between them would be consummated. The appellant had contended that on and from 30.06.2009, the respondent had deserted him without his consent and wish and she never made any attempt to come back and restore a normal conjugal life with him. She started living a life of her own choice. After leaving his house on her own volition, the respondent during July August, 2009, sporadically talked with him over the phone and informed him that she had left her earlier job and was looking for a teaching job. As the respondent is a Master degree holder in Law, the appellant requested her to come to Tezpur to take up a teaching job but the respondent could not be persuaded. In December, 2009, the mother of the appellant fell seriously ill and was admitted in a hospital at Tezpur and, thereafter on 19.12.2009, was referred to GNRC Hospital, Guwahati. As the respondent is a Master degree holder in Law, the appellant requested her to come to Tezpur to take up a teaching job but the respondent could not be persuaded. In December, 2009, the mother of the appellant fell seriously ill and was admitted in a hospital at Tezpur and, thereafter on 19.12.2009, was referred to GNRC Hospital, Guwahati. Despite being informed the respondent who was in Guwahati at that time, never cared to see her mother-in-law by paying a visit to the GNRC hospital. The mother of the appellant expired on 20.12.2009. After the death of his mother, the respondent on a few occasions only cared to inquire about his well-being, that too, from his sister over phone. The appellant came to know, later on, that from November, 2009, the respondent joined as a lecturer in the University Law College of the Guwahati University. Contending that the respondent had deserted the appellant without any cause for a continuous period of more than two years preceding the filing of the petition and had perpetrated extreme cruelty to him during her stay at the matrimonial home by her indifferent behaviour and refusal to consummate the marriage, the appellant had preferred the petition seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 5. In response, the respondent, by filing her written statement, denied the allegations made in the petition stating that there were suppression of material facts and, thus, there was no reason for filing the petition for divorce. While admitting the fact that they came to know each other through common friends prior to marriage, the respondent had stated that she came to Tezpur on 27.10.2008 at the request of the appellant and it was the appellant who financed her flight fare from Mumbai to Guwahati and took her from Guwahati airport. At that time, the respondent was in Mumbai in connection with her studies. On that occasion, the respondent stayed at the house of the appellant for two nights and got acquainted with his mother. She further admitted that during her said stay, she expressed her desire to marry the appellant. After her return from Tezpur, they maintained their contact with each other over telephone. On that occasion, the respondent stayed at the house of the appellant for two nights and got acquainted with his mother. She further admitted that during her said stay, she expressed her desire to marry the appellant. After her return from Tezpur, they maintained their contact with each other over telephone. As the ailing mother of the appellant expressed desire to see the marriage solemnised, the appellant came to the place of the respondent to fix the marriage along with his friends. The respondent denied about resisting the appellant from visiting her house to finalise the marriage and also about opposition of her mother and other family members against the marriage. The respondent s family wanted to hold the marriage in November, 2009 at Guwahati but the appellant did not like the said proposal. Admitting that the marriage was solemnised on 17.06.2009 at Sri Halleswar Temple, Tezpur, she did not admit about the appellant bearing entire expenses of the marriage. The respondent denied that immediately after the marriage on 19.06.2009, she insisted on going to Mumbai to join her service and about receiving repeated phone calls from the Mumbai based company. Rather, it was the appellant who insisted her to go and join the company for getting good package. The mother-in-law told both of them to go to Mumbai to enjoy a happy married life. That she was persuaded by the appellant and his mother from leaving the matrimonial home was categorically denied by the respondent. She stated that since the date of marriage, she stayed and slept in the same bed with the appellant and both of them had sexual intercourse every night. The respondent stated that the marriage was consummated on 19.06.2009 and they also had sexual intercourse thereafter. That the appellant was stopped to go to his in-laws house by the respondent before the marriage and he never knew her mother and other sisters were denied by the respondent. The allegations that it was her decision not to have a child was the reason for refusal to have sexual intercourse and for that reason, the marriage was not consummated were specifically denied by the respondent. She further stated that she, during her stay at her matrimonial home, had discharged all the duties of a wife and her relationship with the mother and sister of the appellant was cordial. She further stated that she, during her stay at her matrimonial home, had discharged all the duties of a wife and her relationship with the mother and sister of the appellant was cordial. On 30.06.2009, the respondent did not leave the matrimonial home for Guwahati on her own. Rather, she was thrown out of the house and all her belongings were still in the custody of the appellant. Though she made frequent phone calls requesting the appellant to take her back to the matrimonial home or allow her to come to the appellant, the appellant delayed the same on one pretext or the other. By stating so, the respondent had denied that she had deserted the appellant on and from 30.06.2009 without his consent. During July-August, 2009, the respondent occasionally talked with the appellant over phone and informed the appellant about her leaving the job in the private concern and looking for a teaching job. It was denied that the appellant asked her to come back to Tezpur to take up a teaching job at Tezpur. She stated that when the appellant s mother was ill and was admitted in hospital, she was informed about the same by others on 18.12.2009 and when she tried to inquire about the same from the appellant, he did not utter anything about the hospitalisation. When on 19.12.2009, the respondent visited Tezpur, she was informed that her mother-in-law was already shifted to the GNRC Hospital, Guwahati and the respondent spent the said night with her sister-in-law. When on 20.12.2009, the appellant threatened her to leave the house immediately, she left Tezpur for Guwahati and on the way, she got the information that her mother-in-law had expired. On the next morning, the respondent left for Tezpur but the funeral was over by the time she reached Tezpur. During that period, the appellant told the respondent that everything between them was over. Stating so, the respondent had admitted that she had never deserted the appellant and it was the appellant who had made the life of the respondent dismal with his neglect and indifference isolating her from him and all his family members. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court had framed the following issues : (i) Whether the respondent subjected the petitioner and his mother to cruelty? (ii) Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner without reasonable cause? 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court had framed the following issues : (i) Whether the respondent subjected the petitioner and his mother to cruelty? (ii) Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner without reasonable cause? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce, as prayed for? 7. During the course of proceeding, except adducing their evidence as witnesses, the appellant and the respondent did not adduce any evidence of other witnesses. No documentary evidence was also adduced. 8. The learned trial court upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, arrived at the findings that it was neither proved from the evidence on record that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty nor it was proved that the respondent had deserted the appellant. By holding so, the learned trial court had decided the issues against the appellant and dismissed the petition of the appellant with cost, thus, denying him the relief of dissolution of the marriage. 9. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that denying the appellant of having any sexual relationship is an act of cruelty itself. By her refusal to have any sexual intercourse for the reason of not bearing any child the respondent had meted out enough mental cruelty on the appellant and his marriage having stood unconsummated, the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce. By leaving the matrimonial house on 30.06.2009, without any just cause, thereby, deserting the appellant, the respondent had made the marriage fictional. He has further submitted that the respondent herself had admitted, in cross-examination, that the marriage was not consummated and there were several inconsistencies in her evidence. 10. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was duly consummated on 19.06.2009 and the respondent had fully discharged all the duties and obligations of a wife. The evidence on record did not suggest any act of cruelty or desertion on the part of the respondent so as to entitle the appellant to a decree of divorce and, thus, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. He has further submitted that the respondent is very much interested to continue the married life. It is further submitted that the respondent was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 30.06.2009. He has further submitted that the respondent is very much interested to continue the married life. It is further submitted that the respondent was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 30.06.2009. Despite being so thrown out, she had made every effort to reconcile and to come back to the appellant. But it was the appellant who had resisted her and, as such, the allegations of desertion is completely misplaced. 11. The submissions made by the parties are duly considered and the materials available in the records of Title Suit (Divorce) Case No. 60/2011, in original, are also perused. 12. Apart from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties outlined above, it is the respective oral evidence of the appellant and the respondent which are to be considered for the purpose of finding out as to whether the case of dissolution of marriage is made out or not, in absence of any other ocular evidence to corroborate their evidence, and in absence of any other documentary evidence. 13. In his testimony before the court below, the appellant had reiterated what he had asserted in his petition, as recapitulated above, and he had been duly cross-examined on behalf of the respondent. Similarly, the respondent had reiterated the same facts as she had mentioned in her written statement and she was also cross-examined. 14. From the evidence on record, it has emerged that though the appellant had stated that he was not acquainted with the other family members of the respondent prior to the marriage he, in his cross-examination, had admitted in clear terms that his family had a cordial relation with the family of the respondent prior to the marriage. The appellant and the respondent after solemnisation of the marriage on 17.06.2009, had spent the period up to 30.06.2009 in the house of the appellant. The case of the appellant is that during the said brief period of stay at her matrimonial home, the respondent had treated the appellant with such mental cruelty that, as per his contention, was sufficient to entitle him to a decree of divorce. Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty is one of the grounds on which either the husband or the wife may seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, cruelty is one of the grounds on which either the husband or the wife may seek dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Such cruelty can either be physical cruelty or mental cruelty but the word cruelty has not been defined anywhere in the Hindu Marriage Act. There is no allegation of any physical cruelty. The mental cruelty can be said to consist of the behaviour or conduct of one s spouse to the other and such behaviour or conduct are to be of such quality and magnitude so as to cause such mental pain, agony and suffering which are profound and have a tendency to create a lasting impression, serious hurt and reasonable apprehension to the other spouse for him or her to come to a conclusion that it would not be proper, safe and rational to continue the conjugal relationship anymore, with the other spouse. 15. One of the contentions of the appellant is that the marriage stood unconsummated between them during the aforesaid period as the respondent refused to have any sexual relationship with the appellant. On the contrary, the respondent had categorically stated that the marriage was consummated on 19.06.2009 and they had also sexual intercourse thereafter every night. The said contention of the appellant is belied by the fact that he himself, in his cross-examination, had stated that they after the marriage on 17.06.2009, lived together as husband and wife for about one week at the matrimonial house at Tezpur. In view of his such contrary assertions, it cannot be accepted that the respondent in order not to bear a child had refused to cohabit with the appellant. In so far as the allegation of not discharging the marital obligations of a wife by the respondent, the appellant had failed to bring on record any other evidence to corroborate his assertions. He alleged that during that brief stay in his house, the respondent had treated him with coldness and there was complete lack of affection on her part. If such was the behaviour and conduct of the respondent, the appellant should have corroborated his statement with any other evidence of any of his relatives or his neighbours who had visited his house during the said period and was not treated warmly by the respondent, because the burden lay on him. If such was the behaviour and conduct of the respondent, the appellant should have corroborated his statement with any other evidence of any of his relatives or his neighbours who had visited his house during the said period and was not treated warmly by the respondent, because the burden lay on him. In absence of corroboration by way of any cogent and reliable evidence and considering the fact that the events alleged had happened at his house with his known persons, his such allegation remained in the realm of bald allegation only. 16. Much emphasis was laid on a statement of the respondent, to a suggestion made in the cross-examination, to the effect that she consummated the marriage with the appellant is not a fact. One cannot read a sentence from the evidence in isolation of the other evidence. To reach a finding on a particular aspect, the evidence has to be read in its entirety for proper appreciation. The consistent of the respondent all along is that the marriage had been consummated. Thus, the reliance of the appellant to a particular sentence from the evidence of the respondent is misplaced and cannot be accepted. 17. In so far as the issue regarding desertion is concerned, the learned trial court had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 SCC 73 , wherein the meaning of desertion has been ascribed as an intentional forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other s consent and without reasonable cause. To be desertion, there has to be total repudiation of the obligations of the marriage. Two essential conditions must be present in respect of the deserting spouse, firstly, the factum of separation, and secondly, the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. 18. In the instant case, apart from differing versions about the manner of departure of the respondent from the matrimonial home there is no other evidence available to come to a definite finding as to why the respondent had left the matrimonial home on 30.06.2009. 18. In the instant case, apart from differing versions about the manner of departure of the respondent from the matrimonial home there is no other evidence available to come to a definite finding as to why the respondent had left the matrimonial home on 30.06.2009. While the appellant had stated that the respondent had left without any cause and without his consent, the respondent, on the other hand, had stated that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the appellant. The conduct of the parties in the period subsequent to 30.06.2009 also assumes significance. It transpires that during July-August, 2009, there was conversation between the appellant and the respondent over phone. The initiation was made by the respondent and she informed the appellant about her service status. Thereafter during December, 2009, the mother of the appellant fell seriously ill and was admitted in a hospital at Tezpur. When the information of about such admission in hospital was received by the respondent from a third person and not from the appellant, the respondent stated that she called the appellant and asked about her mother-in-law but the appellant did not give any reply to her query. Thereafter, the respondent proceeded from Guwahati to Tezpur to enquire about the well being of her mother-in-law but she could not see her mother-in-law as she was, in the meantime, shifted to Guwahati due to seriousness of illness. It was admitted by the appellant himself that the respondent came to his house to take stock of the health condition of her mother-in-law and stayed for a night at Tezpur with her sister-in-law. The appellant stated to have threatened the respondent for staying in his house, which fact was, however, denied by the appellant. The mother-in-law of the appellant expired on 20.12.2009. The respondent was not able to see her mother-in-law at Guwahati as by the time she reached Guwahati from Tezpur the dead body of the mother-in-law was already taken to Tezpur for funeral. The respondent again on 21.12.2009 proceeded to Tezpur but before she reached there, the funeral was over. The appellant had admitted, in his testimony, that the respondent visited his house on 21.12.2009 and stayed for one night. The respondent again on 21.12.2009 proceeded to Tezpur but before she reached there, the funeral was over. The appellant had admitted, in his testimony, that the respondent visited his house on 21.12.2009 and stayed for one night. In view of such gesture shown by the respondent at the time of illness and death of her mother-in-law it is not possible to infer that there was any intention on the part of the respondent to bring a permanent end to the marital relationship with the appellant. The same shows that she had the inclination and desire to have association with the appellant and the family of the appellant. The same amount of reciprocity is found to be missing on the part of the appellant and there was no welcome move on his part. Though he denied that he drove way the respondent from his house on 22.12.2009 forcibly, he had stated that he did not want to accept the respondent back. 19. It has, thus, emerged, in absence of any conclusive evidence as regards the reason as to why the respondent had to leave the matrimonial home on 30.06.2009, that there were conciliatory moves on the part of the respondent to be with the family of the appellant notwithstanding the reason of her leaving in the matrimonial home on 30.06.2009. But there appears to be no conciliatory move on the part of the appellant in the subsequent period. The elements which are required to be present for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition to attract the ground of desertion, appear to be missing in the instant case for the appellant in absence of cogent evidence, to be successful in his endeavour to dissolve the marriage on the ground of desertion, permissible under Section 13(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, the learned trial court is not unjustified in its approach to reflect the plea of desertion taken by the appellant as unsustainable. 20. On appreciation of the evidence on record and having gone through the reasoning given by the learned court below, we do not find any good and sufficient reason to take a different view than the view taken by the learned court below. 20. On appreciation of the evidence on record and having gone through the reasoning given by the learned court below, we do not find any good and sufficient reason to take a different view than the view taken by the learned court below. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the instant appeal is bereft of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, which we accordingly do. 21. The records of learned court below is to be returned accordingly.