JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 2, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2018 (decree singed on 03.08.2018) passed by Sri Banshidhar Tiwari, learned Principal Judge Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Matrimonial Suit No. 67 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been dissolved from the date of the decree. 3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned court below. 4. The petitioner (respondent herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of marriage with the respondent (appellant herein) under section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein it has been stated the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 28.05.1985 at village Lohar Pokhari, P.O. Dhawadih, P.S. Lesliganj within the district of Palamu. Out of the wedlock a son was born in the year 1987 who is now aged about 20 years and who stays with his mother (appellant). It has been stated that during the stay of the petitioner and the respondent at Kundri dispute started and the respondent frequently abused the petitioner and also alleged illicit relationship of the petitioner with another woman. The petitioner was subjected to mental and physical torture by the respondent and the respondent had also got the petitioner beaten up by her men. The respondent had left her matrimonial house on 10.06.1995, returned back on 12.06.1995 and finally left on 30.09.1995 and since then she is staying at her parents' house. The respondent in the meantime filed a Misc. Case against the petitioner due to which he had to remain in jail for four days. The respondent had also claimed maintenance and the court had directed the petitioner to make payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent and her son. The respondent had deserted the petitioner in the year 1995 and since then she is living separately with her parents at village Lohar Pokhari. 5. The respondent on being noticed had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations levelled by the petitioner against her in the plaint has been denied. The respondent had deserted the petitioner in the year 1995 and since then she is living separately with her parents at village Lohar Pokhari. 5. The respondent on being noticed had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations levelled by the petitioner against her in the plaint has been denied. It has been stated that in June, 1995 the petitioner along with his parents had brutally assaulted the respondent and ousted her and her son from her matrimonial house for non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 50,000/-. After the respondent was ousted from her matrimonial house the petitioner had developed relationship with one Samudri Devi and solemnized marriage with her. The respondent has expressed his desire to stay with the petitioner with full love and affection. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed for adjudication: (i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in the eyes of law? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action for filing the petition for divorce? (iii) Whether the plaintiff has suffered mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the respondent? (iv) Whether the respondent has willfully deserted the petitioner since last 21 years without any reasonable cause? (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the divorce petition? 7. The petitioner has examined four witnesses in support of his case. 8. PW-1 (Gaya Pal) is acquainted with the petitioner as well as the respondent. He has stated that he had attended the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1985. After marriage the respondent had gone to her matrimonial house but left after two days and went to her parents' place and thereafter returned to her matrimonial house after two years. She once again had left for her parents' place. The petitioner had not stayed with the respondent for 25-26 years. A son was also born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the respondent. On court question he has stated that he does not know the reason for the respondent not staying with the petitioner. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the petitioner has solemnized a second marriage and he has 2-3 children out of the said wedlock. 9. PW-2 (Balram Ram) is also acquainted with both the sides. On court question he has stated that he does not know the reason for the respondent not staying with the petitioner. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the petitioner has solemnized a second marriage and he has 2-3 children out of the said wedlock. 9. PW-2 (Balram Ram) is also acquainted with both the sides. He has stated that after the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in 1985 the respondent stayed in her matrimonial house for two days after which she left for her parents' house and she had never come back to her matrimonial house. He has stated that the respondent had given birth to a male child in 1995. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the petitioner has solemnized a second marriage with a woman named Samudri. 10. PW-3 (Radhey Shyam Sao) is the petitioner who has stated about his marriage being solemnized with the respondent in the year 1985. The respondent is not residing with him for the last 25 years. After marriage the respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house for only two days and thereafter, she had returned back to her parents' place. When after one month he had gone to her parents' place she had flatly refused to come back since he earns a meagre amount while she has sufficient earning by selling vegetables. The respondent had given birth to a male child in 1988 which has not been fathered by him. Even if the respondent is desirous to stay with him he will not keep her. No one turned up to cross-examine the witness and hence he was discharged. After recall he was cross-examined and he has deposed that he has solemnized another marriage with Samudri Devi from whom he has four daughters and one son. 11. PW-4 (Shivratri Sao) has basically reiterated what has been stated by the other witnesses. On court question, he has stated that the petitioner is his brother in village relation. The petitioner has solemnized a second marriage and four children were born out of the said wedlock. In cross-examination, he has deposed that as per his knowledge the respondent did not want to lead her marital life with a person who works as a labour. 12. The respondent has examined only herself as a witness. 13. O.PW-1 (Pramila Devi) has stated about her marriage solemnized with the petitioner in the year 1985. In cross-examination, he has deposed that as per his knowledge the respondent did not want to lead her marital life with a person who works as a labour. 12. The respondent has examined only herself as a witness. 13. O.PW-1 (Pramila Devi) has stated about her marriage solemnized with the petitioner in the year 1985. After marriage she went to her matrimonial house where she stayed for two months after which she was subjected to assault at the hands of the petitioner on the allegation that she was having an illicit affair with another person. She had given birth to two children out of which one is alive. She somehow stayed at her matrimonial house for ten years after which she was assaulted and ousted. She has expressed her desire to stay with the petitioner. She has stated that her husband has solemnized marriage with another lady namely, Samudri. In cross-examination, she has deposed that during Panchami she had returned back to her matrimonial house. She was kept well for sometime by the petitioner and in the meantime, she gave birth to a child. Her husband had thereafter gone to Delhi and she stayed at her matrimonial house for a year after which she left for her parents' place. She had once again come back to her matrimonial house. She had spent a total period of ten years with the petitioner. 14. It has been submitted by Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/appellant that the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2018 is non-speaking, cryptic and has not appropriately considered the materials available on record. It has been submitted that only on account of the fact that the petitioner has solemnized a second marriage the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has been dissolved. 15. Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 2, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/respondent herein has supported the impugned judgment while submitting that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had become dead for all times to come. He has submitted that the petitioner has married Samudri Devi out of which they have five children and considering the reluctance of the respondent to resume conjugal life with the petitioner from the very inception of the marriage the learned court below has come to a justifiable conclusion. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the lower court records. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the lower court records. 17. A suit was preferred by the petitioner for dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 18. Issue nos. (iii) and (iv) are the core issues involved in the suit. So far as cruelty is concerned, though it is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but it postulates an act which endangers the living of one spouse with the other. There has to be a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the person alleging cruelty that it would harmful and injurious for such person to live with his/her spouse. The allegations made by the petitioner is primarily of mental cruelty though on balancing of the evidence of witnesses of both the sides it is not understandable how cruelty has been caused to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner claims that the respondent had left her matrimonial house after two days of marriage and she had never come back thereafter though such assertion has been denied by the respondent who has stated about her intermittent stay at her matrimonial house for a period of ten years. The conduct of the petitioner appears to be interesting. If we assume as correct the evidence of the petitioner (PW-3) his conduct during his long hiatus with his wife is deplorable as only once and that too within one month of marriage he had gone to bring back his wife. On the one hand the petitioner permitted the relationship with the respondent to slide down while on the other hand he had solemnized another marriage with Samudri Devi. The respondent as OPW1 has given instances of torture committed upon her which virtually forced her to leave her matrimonial house. Thus, cruelty has not been proved by the petitioner. 19. Desertion is the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without reasonable cause. Though the petitioner has taken desertion as one of his grounds for seeking divorce but the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses does not seem to strengthen such claim in the backdrop of the evidence of OPW1 which is clear, cogent and speaks of a reasonable cause for withdrawing from the society of the petitioner. Though the petitioner has taken desertion as one of his grounds for seeking divorce but the evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses does not seem to strengthen such claim in the backdrop of the evidence of OPW1 which is clear, cogent and speaks of a reasonable cause for withdrawing from the society of the petitioner. Another feature of the evidence of the petitioner (PW-3) is of denying the paternity of the child born to the respondent which seems to be a bald statement casting aspersions on the character of the respondent. This can be co-related with the evidence of OPW1 which speaks of an allegation made against the respondent by the petitioner of having illicit relationship with another person. The same would also be a reasonable cause for the respondent to withdraw from the society of the petitioner. Issue no. (iv) which relates to desertion is also answered against the petitioner. 20. When the issues are framed by the learned court below it is expected that thoughtful consideration is given to the issues to be dealt with based on the materials available on record. The findings recorded by the learned court below seems to have juxtaposed issues of cruelty and desertion in a single window without giving a definitive finding on each of these issues. Learned counsel for the respondent/appellant was therefore, correct in pointing out that the impugned judgment is devoid of any cogent and justifiable reasons. 21. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, we hereby set aside the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2018 passed by Sri Banshidhar Tiwari, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Matrimonial Suit No. 67 of 2015 by which the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been dissolved from the date of the decree. 22. This appeal is allowed. 23. Pending I.As. if any, are closed.