JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 10.5.2022 (decree signed on 17.5.2022), passed by Shri Gati Krishna Tewary, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-2, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 182 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed. 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 applicant (appellant herein) had filed a suit under section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent herein also) in which inter alia it has been stated that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 19.5.2001 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Jamshedpur and out of the said wedlock a son was born on 12.7.2002. The respondent had resided with the applicant continuously for forty days from the date of her marriage and thereafter on one pretext or the other she intermittently started residing at her parents’ house and when she was carrying of about 2-3 months she deserted the applicant in the first week of January, 2002 and since then she is residing at her parents house. The respondent was admitted in Tata Main Hospital in the name of the applicant and all the expenditure and medical treatment was done in the name of the applicant. The applicant had gone to his inlaws place but he was not allowed even to see the baby. It has been stated that the applicant made all efforts to convince and bring back the respondent to his house and when she refused the applicant was compelled to prefer a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in MAT Suit No. 103/03, in which the respondent had appeared but since no positive reply was submitted by the respondent, the applicant had to withdraw the suit. In the year 2005, the applicant came to know that a criminal case has been instituted by the respondent against him and his family members being Telco P.S. Case No. 157/05 under section 498A, 506/34 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which the applicant, his parents and brother had been convicted for the offence under section 498A IPC. The order of conviction and sentence was challenged in Cr. Appeal No. 190/10 in which except the applicant the other accused persons were acquitted vide judgment dated 22.9.2014. It has been stated that the applicant had preferred a revision application before the High Court in Cr. Revision No. 1109/14, in which the applicant is on bail. The respondent had filed a maintenance case against the applicant being Misc. Case No.51/04 in which vide order dated 8.7.2008, a sum of Rs.2,500/-had been directed to be paid by the applicant to the respondent. The applicant is regularly making payment of maintenance to the respondent in terms of the direction of the court. The respondent had filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance amount under section 127(1) Cr. P.C. being Misc. Case No. 153/09 which is still pending. It has been stated that the respondent without any reasonable cause is residing separately from the applicant since the month of January, 2002. 5. On being noticed the respondent had appeared and filed her written statement in which the allegations levelled against her has been denied. She has stated that she was forced to institute the criminal case against the applicant and his family members on account of the torture he had to undergo at the hands of the applicant. The respondent had on several occasions made attempts to restore normalcy in their conjugal relationship but such efforts proved futile. She has expressed her desire to resume conjugal relationship with the applicant. She has stated that in Misc. Case No. 153/09 a final order was passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court awarding maintenance of Rs.7000/- payable from the month of June, 2016 but till date no maintenance amount has been deposited by the applicant and the total arrears amount to Rs. 1,05,000/-. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication. (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Whether the applicant has valid cause of action? 1,05,000/-. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication. (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Whether the applicant has valid cause of action? (iii)Whether the suit is within the jurisdiction of this Court? (iv) Whether the respondent has committed acts of cruelty on the applicant? (v) Whether the respondent has deserted the applicant? (vi)Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion? (vii)To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled to? 7. The applicant has examined three witnesses in support of his case including himself. A.W-1-Amar Kumar Singh is the applicant who has stated about his solemnization of marriage with the respondent on 19.5.2001 and the birth of a child on 12.7.02 out of the said wedlock. The respondent had resided with him continuously for a period of forty days and thereafter she used to frequent her parental house and during pregnancy she deserted him without any reasonable cause and from the first week of January, 2002 she is residing at her parents’ house. The respondent was admitted in Tata Main Hospital in his name where the medical treatment was done for free. He had gone to his inlaws place but he was not allowed to see the new born baby. He had tried his best to convince the respondent for resumption of marital life but she refused and ultimately he had to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being MAT Suit No. 103/03 in which the respondent had appeared and since there was no positive response from her side the suit was ultimately withdrawn. He has stated that in the year 2005, it came to his knowledge that the respondent has filed a criminal case against him and his family members being Telco P.S. Case No. 157/05 and ultimately he, his parents and brother were found guilty under section 498A IPC, against which an appeal was preferred and though the others were acquitted but his conviction was sustained by the appellate court vide judgment dated 22.9.2014. Against the order passed by the appellate court, he had preferred a revision application before the High Court in Cr. Revision No. 1109/14, in which he has been granted bail. The respondent had also filed a case for maintenance being Misc. Against the order passed by the appellate court, he had preferred a revision application before the High Court in Cr. Revision No. 1109/14, in which he has been granted bail. The respondent had also filed a case for maintenance being Misc. Case No. 51/04 in which vide order dated 8.7.2008, he was directed to pay Rs.2500/-to the respondent which he is regularly complying with. He has stated that the respondent had filed a petition under section 127(1) Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount which was allowed and a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month was ordered to be paid which he has challenged in the High Court being Cr. Revision No.1082/16. He has stated that the respondent without any reasonable cause is residing separately since January, 2002. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know in which school and in which class his son is studying though subsequently he has stated about the name of the school being “Motilal Nehru School”. The cross-examination was deferred due to time constraints and when it resumed he had stated the name of his son as Ashutosh who studies in class-X. He does not meet his son nor does he talk with him. He has admitted that he has not fulfilled the duties of a father towards his son. He deposits the monthly maintenance towards his wife after fifteenth of every month. He has deposed that his wife wants to stay with him but he does not want to keep his wife with him. He and his wife are staying separate for the last eighteen years. A-W-2-Ramesh Kumar Singh is the elder brother of the applicant who has stated that the respondent had subjected the applicant to cruelty and humiliation. He in his sworn statement has reiterated the evidence of A.W-1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know the name of the son of the applicant and the respondent. He has in his capacity of being the elder brother of the applicant had tried to salvage the marriage between the applicant and the respondent. He does not have any objection if the applicant and the respondent stays together. A.W-3-Vijay Shankar Singh is acquainted with both the sides. His statement is similar to the sworn statement of A.W-2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his house is situated at a distance of ten kilometers from the house of the applicant. He does not have any objection if the applicant and the respondent stays together. A.W-3-Vijay Shankar Singh is acquainted with both the sides. His statement is similar to the sworn statement of A.W-2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his house is situated at a distance of ten kilometers from the house of the applicant. He knows the applicant since the year 2000. He had never seen the applicant and the respondent quarreling. 8. The respondent has examined five witnesses in support of her case. R.W-1-Ashutosh is the son of the parties who has stated that the suit for divorce is without any basis since the respondent had to leave her matrimonial house due to the demand of dowry and physical and mental torture committed upon her mother. The applicant had regularly met him and his mother and had also stayed with the respondent. The applicant had never behaved properly with the respondent and had never done the duty of a father and husband towards him and his mother. His studies have suffered due to financial constraints as his mother is a house wife and his maternal grandfather has become old. He has stated that the criminal case instituted by his mother resulted in conviction of the applicant for two years. The applicant does not give timely maintenance as a result of which his studies are being hampered. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is not aware as to whether the applicant has solemnized a second marriage or not. The applicant deposits regular monthly maintenance amount in the Civil Court, Nazarath. After his birth, he has not even stayed for a single day at his father’ place. In the year 2018, he had told the applicant to keep his mother (respondent) with him. He has deposed that his mother works in DLSA since the year 2016. R-W-2-Satendra Kumar is the brother of the respondent who has also stated on similar terms to that of R.W-1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that his sister has not filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights. His sister is staying in his house since 10.1.2002. Ashutosh had gone to the house of his paternal grandfather along with his mother in the year 2004 which fact neither has been mentioned by the respondent in G.R. No. 1440/05 or it is known to him. His sister stays with him. His sister is staying in his house since 10.1.2002. Ashutosh had gone to the house of his paternal grandfather along with his mother in the year 2004 which fact neither has been mentioned by the respondent in G.R. No. 1440/05 or it is known to him. His sister stays with him. His sister works as a PLV for the last three years. R.W-3-Anil Kumar Singh is the cousin brother of the respondent who in his sworn statement has reiterated the version of R.W-2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the respondent had once come to the house of the applicant after the birth of the child. The last time he had met the applicant was in the year 2006. He had gone to the house of the applicant in the year 2006 along with the son of the applicant. R.W-4-Ranju Devi is the neighbor of the respondent who has stated that the behaviour of the applicant towards the respondent was not cordial. Whenever the applicant came to his inlaws place he used to call the respondent and met him in a betel shop. The respondent is still ready to stay with the applicant to secure the future of their son-Ashutosh. The applicant had assaulted the respondent for not fulfilling the demand of dowry and due to compulsion the respondent started residing at her parental house. She has stated that the assault was committed in her presence. It is incorrect on the part of the applicant to claim that from January, 2002 both are staying separate and infact both had stayed together and had continued with their marital ties. In cross-examination, she has deposed that both the applicant and the respondent are staying separate from 2002 onwards. She is a friend of the respondent since school days where both had studied. R.W-5-Sunita Singh is the respondent who has stated about solemnization of her marriage with the applicant on 19.5.2001 and after marriage she started residing at quarter no. X type 56, Main Road, Sidhgora, Jamshedpur. At the time of marriage, her father had given as dowry, cash, jewelleries and other articles. The applicant and the respondent were residing together when she became pregnant which annoyed the applicant and he started committing physical and mental torture upon her to undergo an abortion which she did not want. X type 56, Main Road, Sidhgora, Jamshedpur. At the time of marriage, her father had given as dowry, cash, jewelleries and other articles. The applicant and the respondent were residing together when she became pregnant which annoyed the applicant and he started committing physical and mental torture upon her to undergo an abortion which she did not want. However, due to continuous pressure, she relented and she had to undergo an abortion in the month of August, 2001. She had once again become pregnant and the applicant on coming to know about the said fact started pressuring her which was informed by her to her father who came and took her away to his house. On 12.7.2002, she gave birth to a son who was named Ashutosh. None from her matrimonial side came and visited her after the birth of her son. She has expressed her desire to stay with the applicant without any conditions attached. In the year 2004 she had instituted a case for maintenance being Misc. Case No. 51/04 in which an order was passed to deposit Rs.2500/-per month as maintenance but the applicant did not deposit the said amount. Due to inflation, she had filed Misc. Case No. 153/09 wherein an order was passed for maintenance of Rs.7000/-per month in June, 2016. The arrears of maintenance are to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. She had also filed a case under section 498A being G.R. Case No. 1440/05, in which the accused persons were convicted. In the suit filed by the applicant for restitution of conjugal rights she was ready to go with the applicant but he had refused to keep her. In cross-examination, she has deposed that during her pregnancy she was treated in a private hospital and the entire expenses were born by her father. Her son was born in TMH in the ticket number of the applicant. She works as a para legal volunteer. With regard to her abortion she had never made any complaint. The applicant used to sometimes come to meet her. She has denied that there is no physical relationship between her and the applicant since January, 2002. 9. It has been submitted by Mr. She works as a para legal volunteer. With regard to her abortion she had never made any complaint. The applicant used to sometimes come to meet her. She has denied that there is no physical relationship between her and the applicant since January, 2002. 9. It has been submitted by Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant, that the issue of cruelty and desertion has been convincingly proved by the applicant but the learned court below had overtly relied upon the evidence of R.W-5 (respondent) while answering the said issues in favour of the respondent. Learned counsel has referred to the evidence of the respondent-witnesses while submitting that the applicant had made all efforts to restore the marital ties with the respondent but the respondent instead had instituted a maintenance case as well as a criminal case under section 498A IPC in which the applicant was convicted. The respondent had thwarted the efforts of the applicant to restore normalcy in the marital life and instead had sent him to jail which would make it impossible for the applicant to stay together with the respondent. The respondent without any reasonable cause had willfully abandoned the society of the applicant and therefore desertion has also been proved by the applicant. 10. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has defended the impugned judgment by submitting that the respondent was subjected to torture by the applicant and his family members which has been indicated in the order of conviction passed by the learned trial court. It was the applicant who had ousted the respondent from her matrimonial house and therefore the respondent cannot be alleged to have deserted the applicant. 11. Issue Nos. (iv) and (v) are the issues which are pivotal to the prayer of the applicant. 12. So far as cruelty is concerned, the applicant seems to have focused on the conduct of the respondent to the effect that the respondent had stayed with him continuously for a period of forty days and thereafter used to frequent her parental house and had left her matrimonial house when she became pregnant. The applicant had made efforts to bring her back but she refused and he was not even allowed to see his newly born son. In cross-examination as A.W-1 he has expressed his refusal to resume his marital ties with the respondent. The applicant had made efforts to bring her back but she refused and he was not even allowed to see his newly born son. In cross-examination as A.W-1 he has expressed his refusal to resume his marital ties with the respondent. The evidence of the respondent (R-W-5) seems to suggest that the applicant sometimes used to come to meet her. The applicant has not given any instance suggestive of a semblance of mental cruelty committed by the respondent. Infact, the respondent has been able to establish that it was she who was subjected to cruelty for which a criminal case was instituted and the applicant was convicted for the offence under section 498A IPC. 13. None of the witnesses of the applicant have also been able to highlight any instance which would suggest that it was impossible for the applicant to continue with the marital ties with the respondent. 14. The applicant seems to have made no effort to convince and bring back the respondent to her matrimonial home. The apathy of the applicant towards his wife is further enhanced by the fact that in his cross-examination he has been unable to disclose the name of his son though when the cross-examination was deferred he had stated about the name of his son which indicates that during the intervening period he had obtained the information regarding the name of his son. He has also admitted that he had not fulfilled the duties of a father towards his son. The applicant therefore has been unable to prove the allegation of cruelty against the respondent. So far as desertion is concerned, the respondent has highlighted several instances from where it can be deciphered that she had sufficient reasons not to stay with the applicant. Her allegation of torture on non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry has been vindicated on account of the conviction of the applicant which was affirmed up to the appellate stage. The case instituted for maintenance was allowed and the application for alternation in the maintenance amount was also allowed. It would therefore transpire that the respondent had not left her matrimonial house on her own volition, rather, on account of the conduct of the applicant she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. The issue of desertion therefore has also not been proved by the applicant. 15. It would therefore transpire that the respondent had not left her matrimonial house on her own volition, rather, on account of the conduct of the applicant she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. The issue of desertion therefore has also not been proved by the applicant. 15. It is no doubt true that both the parties are living separately since long but that by itself would not be a ground for dissolving the marriage as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant in absence of there being any such provision in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 16. The learned court below has appropriately considered the entire facets of the case while dismissing the suit. We do not find any reason to cause interference in the judgment and decree dated 10.5.2022(decree signed on 17.5.2022) passed by Shri Gati Krishna Tiwari, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 182 of 2016 and consequently we dismiss this appeal. 17. Pending I.A, if any, stands closed.