JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Niladri Sekhar Mukharjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 4, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2023 (decree signed on 17.06.2023) passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Suit No. 116/2019 whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 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 trial court. 4. The plaintiff (appellant herein) had preferred a suit under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 1 herein) in which inter alia, it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant no. 1 on 19.02.1996 as per Christian rites and customs at village Gulamsuli, District- Dumka. After marriage, the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 started residing together as husband and wife at village Fasiya Dangal since 1996. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born to the couple in the year 2000. After marriage, owing to the difference in temperament, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 deteriorated. From the first night of the marriage, the character of the defendant no. 1 became doubtful and questionable in the mind of the plaintiff due to which the plaintiff has suffered continuous mental agony. The defendant no. 1 had illicit relationship with Debasis Baskey in the year 2004 and with Bachan Pandey in the year 2017 for which panchayati was also held. It has been stated that the defendant no. 1 also had an illicit relationship with Amit Singh and the tape-recorded conversation is in possession of the plaintiff. 5. On being noticed, the defendant no. 1 had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations made by the plaintiff has been denied. The plaintiff has tortured the defendant no. 1 by making reckless allegation on her character and since September 2008 had on several occasions, assaulted the defendant no. 1. On 27.05.2019, the plaintiff had brutally assaulted the defendant no. 1 which resulted in the defendant no. The plaintiff has tortured the defendant no. 1 by making reckless allegation on her character and since September 2008 had on several occasions, assaulted the defendant no. 1. On 27.05.2019, the plaintiff had brutally assaulted the defendant no. 1 which resulted in the defendant no. 1 making a complaint on 28.05.19 before the Dumka (M) P.S. Despite the plaintiff appearing before the Police, the matter could not be resolved. The defendant no. 1 has denied of ever having an illicit relationship with Debasis Baskey, Bachan Pandey and Amit Singh. In fact, it is the plaintiff who has an illicit relationship with Manju Murmu who stays in a rented house and the rent is paid by the plaintiff. When the defendant no. 1 went to the rented house of Manju Murmu, she had admitted of such relationship with the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 had made a written complaint to Dumka (M) P.S. on 04.07.2019 regarding such illicit relationship in which the plaintiff was given a notice but he did not appear. The son of the defendant no. 1 is a major who stays with her and in such circumstances, there is no question of the defendant no. 1 resorting to such immoral conduct. Since the defendant no. 1 did not consent to the request of the plaintiff to marry Manju Murmu, the suit has been instituted. 6. The plaintiff had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead Debasis Baskey, Bachan Pandey and Amit Singh as defendants and on such application being allowed, on 13.09.22 they were impleaded as defendants. 7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication. I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? II. Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., alleged adulterers and in absence of, the suit is liable to be dismissed? IV. Whether the defendant is residing separately from the plaintiff since 2004 having no cohabitation and thereby causing cruelty to the plaintiff? V. Whether the defendant deserted the plaintiff since 28.05.2019 without any sufficient cause and the defendant has deserted the plaintiff for continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the petition? VI. IV. Whether the defendant is residing separately from the plaintiff since 2004 having no cohabitation and thereby causing cruelty to the plaintiff? V. Whether the defendant deserted the plaintiff since 28.05.2019 without any sufficient cause and the defendant has deserted the plaintiff for continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the petition? VI. Whether the defendant is leading adulterous life with another person other than her husband, namely, Debasis Baskey, Bachan Pandey and Amit Singh? VII. Is the plaintiff entitled for decree of dissolution of marriage or any other reliefs? 8. The plaintiff has examined as many as six witnesses in support of his case: P.W.1 Lukhiram Hansda is the plaintiff who has stated about solemnization of his marriage with the defendant no. 1 on 19.02.1996 and out of the said wedlock, a son was born in the year 2000. The relation between him and the defendant no. 1 was cordial till 2000 after which, the relationship became sour and there was regular quarrel between them. He came to know that the defendant no. 1 is having an illicit relationship with Debasis Baskey which was confirmed by Jagan Tudu, the Gram Pradhan in a panchayat held in 2004. Later on, the defendant no. 1 developed an illicit relationship with Bachan Pandey which he had witnessed in the year 2017. He has stated that the defendant no. 1, without any information, on one day in February 2017, left with one Amit Singh and spent the night in the house of Cecelia Hansda. He has in his possession the voice recording showing the illicit relationship between the defendant no. 1 and Amit Singh. When he had shown his annoyance at such affair, he was subjected to torture with threat to implicate him in false dowry related cases. The defendant no. 1 had made a written complaint to Dumka (M) P.S. on 28.05.2019 and on inquiry, the Police has found the allegations to be false. The defendant no. 1 had remained absent from the house from 15.09.2019 to 18.09.2019 and on being asked, she had disclosed that she had gone to Maheshpur. Panchayatis were convened on several occasions due to the conduct of the defendant no. 1, but the same did not yield any result. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a primary school teacher. It is true that he and the defendant no. Panchayatis were convened on several occasions due to the conduct of the defendant no. 1, but the same did not yield any result. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a primary school teacher. It is true that he and the defendant no. 1 run a private school, Christian children school. The defendant no. 1 is at present the Principal of the School. He had not made any complaint before the Police regarding the illicit relationship of the defendant no. 1 with Bachan Pandey, but had made a complaint to the Gram Pradhan. P.W.2 Jagan Tudu is a Gram Pradhan since 1969 at village Fasiya Dangal, who has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that no written complaint was made in the Gram Sabha relating to the strained relationship between both the sides. P.W.3 Hopna Baskey has stated similar to that of P.W.2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that P.W.1 is his cousin brother. The defendant no. 1 had lodged a case under Section 498A IPC in Mahila Police Station. P.W.4 Paulina Soren has also reiterated what has been stated by the other witnesses. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 reside in the same house but in separate rooms. She had not seen any physical assault between them. She is the Pradhan of her village. Due to such strained relationship and illicit relationship of the defendant no. 1, both the parties were called to the panchayat where the defendant no. 1 had appeared, but none appeared from her family and a document was also prepared in the panchayat. She does not have any knowledge about the plaintiff having an illicit relationship with Manju Baskey. P.W.5 Lukhimuni Tudu has more or less stated about what has been depicted by the other witnesses in their sworn statements. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the plaintiff is her brother. Both the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 reside in separate houses situated at a distance of 50 meters apart. She and the plaintiff reside in the same house. Neither she, nor the plaintiff had ever made any written complaint to either the Police or to the Court regarding the threat or the illicit relationship the defendant no. 1 was having with others. 1 reside in separate houses situated at a distance of 50 meters apart. She and the plaintiff reside in the same house. Neither she, nor the plaintiff had ever made any written complaint to either the Police or to the Court regarding the threat or the illicit relationship the defendant no. 1 was having with others. P.W.6 Sumeshwar Nath Singh is the Deed Writer in Dumka Registry Office and he has proved three exhibits. 9. The defendant no. 1 has examined four witnesses on her behalf: D.W.1 Dinesh Kumar Soren has stated that he is acquainted with both the sides. Out of the wedlock of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1, a son was born who is now 22 years of age. Both the parties reside together in the same house even after institution of the suit. When after the suit was filed, the plaintiff became ill it was the defendant no. 1 who took care of him and he had also given his assistance in helping the plaintiff recover. The plaintiff is a government teacher and he is also the Secretary of Decent Children School. He has denied the allegations made against the defendant no. 1 of having illicit relationship with several persons. It is in fact the plaintiff who has an illicit relationship with Manju Murmu and which resulted in a strained relationship between the two. A case under Section 498A IPC was instituted by the defendant no. 1 against the plaintiff which ended on account of a compromise between the parties. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the defendant no.1 is his cousin sister. He does not know Debasis Baskey, Bachan Pandey or Amit Singh. D.W.2 Soni Snehlata Murmu has reiterated what has been stated by D.W.1. In cross-examination, she has deposed that the defendant no.1 is her own sister. The couple has a son who stays with the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 had filed only one case against the plaintiff which ended in a compromise. The case was instituted due to illicit relationship between the plaintiff and Manju Murmu. The defendant no. 1 does not do any work and stays at Fasiyadangal in the house of the plaintiff. D.W.3 Bablu Murmu has stated similar to D.W.1 and D.W.2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he drives a vehicle. The case was instituted due to illicit relationship between the plaintiff and Manju Murmu. The defendant no. 1 does not do any work and stays at Fasiyadangal in the house of the plaintiff. D.W.3 Bablu Murmu has stated similar to D.W.1 and D.W.2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he drives a vehicle. The plaintiff had never engaged him in the year 2019 to go to the house of the mukhiya of Kurua village. D.W.4 Premlata Murmu is the defendant no. 1 who has stated that her marriage was solemnized on 19.02.1996 with the plaintiff at village Gulamsuli, P.S.- Ranishwar District-Dumka as per Christian rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born who is now aged 22 years. She and the plaintiff stay in the same house. She has denied of having illicit relationship with any person. She was working as a Secretary-cum-Principal of Decent Children School, but she was removed from her post by the plaintiff on 31.10.2019. The plaintiff had dissolved the trust on the basis of which she was continuing as a Secretary and created a new Deed of Trust in his name. The plaintiff has an illicit relationship with Manju Murmu who stays in a rented house and the rent is borne by the plaintiff. Manju Murmu, on being confronted by her, had admitted to the relationship she had with the plaintiff. On 04.07.2019, she had given a written application to the Officer-in-Charge Dumka P.S. regarding the illicit relationship of the plaintiff but despite being called, the plaintiff did not appear before the said authority. She has stated that she is the Mukhiya of village Fasiya Dangal and also being the Secretary-cum-Principal of the School, several persons come to meet her which has been construed by the plaintiff to be an act touching upon her character. When she did not give permission to the plaintiff to solemnize marriage with Manju Murmu he had instituted the suit for divorce. She and the plaintiff stay in the same house and not in separate houses as claimed by the plaintiff. In December 2022, the plaintiff had fallen sick and he was admitted at Bharti Hospital, Dumka where she and her son had taken full care of the plaintiff and she is doing her duty towards the plaintiff till date. She and the plaintiff stay in the same house and not in separate houses as claimed by the plaintiff. In December 2022, the plaintiff had fallen sick and he was admitted at Bharti Hospital, Dumka where she and her son had taken full care of the plaintiff and she is doing her duty towards the plaintiff till date. The case instituted by her under Section 498A IPC was disposed of on the basis of compromise. In the Mediation Centre, Dumka on the basis of an undertaking of withdrawing the divorce case, the plaintiff was granted bail. In cross-examination she has deposed that her son stays with her. She used to get a salary of Rs. 40,000-50,000/- when she was working in Decent Public School. She does not reside at the house built by her father, but stays in the school premises. She had once gone to the house of Manju Murmu at village Sindri and had also made a complaint to the Gram Pradhan, though the said complaint was not in writing. She has deposed that she does not know Debasis Baskey, Bachan Pandey and Amit Singh. 10. It has been submitted by Mr. Niladri Sekhar Mukherjee, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the plaintiff has been able to make out a case under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, but the learned trial court has brushed aside the grounds taken by the plaintiff. Instances have been depicted by the plaintiff with respect to the cruelty committed upon him by the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff has specifically named the persons with whom the defendant no. 1 was having illicit relationship which has not been emphatically denied by the defendant no. 1. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that merely on account of staying in the same house would not demolish the case of the plaintiff with respect to desertion since the defendant no. 1 had forsaken all relationship with the plaintiff for more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the suit for divorce and, therefore, desertion has also been proved by the plaintiff. 11. Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 4, learned counsel appearing for the defendant no. 1 has submitted that vague allegations have been made by the plaintiff in regard to the purported adulterous relationship of the defendant no. 1 with the other defendants. 11. Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 4, learned counsel appearing for the defendant no. 1 has submitted that vague allegations have been made by the plaintiff in regard to the purported adulterous relationship of the defendant no. 1 with the other defendants. In fact, it is the plaintiff who is in an adulterous relationship with Manju Murmu and since he wants to solemnise marriage with Manju Murmu he has filed the suit for divorce. It has further been submitted that the learned trial court has rightly decided the issues of adultery, desertion and cruelty against the plaintiff and, therefore, no interference is necessitated in the impugned judgement. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 13. Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 reads as follows: “ 10. Grounds for dissolution of marriage .—(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, may, on a petition presented to the District Court either by the husband or the wife, be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnisation of the marriage, the respondent— (i) has committed adultery; or (ii) has ceased to be Christian by conversion to another religion; or (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (iv) 20[* * *] (v) has, for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or (vi) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of the respondent if the respondent had been alive; or (vii) has wilfully refused to consummate the marriage and the marriage has not therefore been consummated; or (viii) has failed to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights for a period of two years or upwards after the passing of the decree against the respondent; or (ix) has deserted the petitioner for at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or (x) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. (2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage on the ground that the husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality.]” 14. Sub-Section (i), (ix) and (x) of Section 10 deals with adultery, desertion and cruelty respectively and these grounds have been invoked by the plaintiff to seek dissolution of marriage with the defendant no. 1. 15. So, far as the ground of adultery is concerned, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendant no. 1 at various stages had illicit relationship with the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4. The plaintiff has brought on record Exhibit-2 which is a panchayat document relating to a meeting called by the panchayat on 30.12.2020 on the allegation of the plaintiff regarding the adulterous relationship of the defendant no. 1. The names of the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 have not been mentioned in the said document and it seems that the defendant no. 1 did not appear in the meeting. The plaintiff who has been examined as P.W.1 has claimed to have in his possession the voice recording proving the illicit relationship between the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 4, but the same has not been produced by him in Court. The allegation of adultery made by the plaintiff is reckless, unsubstantiated and configured to the character assassination of the defendant no. 1. Even otherwise, the defendant no. 1 has given a plausible explanation in her evidence as D.W.4 as she has stated of being a public representative being the elected Mukhiya of village Fasiya Dangal and several persons come to meet her on a regular basis. The issue of adultery is, therefore, rightly answered against the plaintiff. 16. The acts of the defendant no. 1 as alleged by the plaintiff do not specify an act of cruelty as it seems that it was the defendant no. 1 who was at the receiving end of the torture committed by the plaintiff which can be fathomed from the institution of the case under Section 498A IPC which however culminated in a compromise between the parties. 1 as alleged by the plaintiff do not specify an act of cruelty as it seems that it was the defendant no. 1 who was at the receiving end of the torture committed by the plaintiff which can be fathomed from the institution of the case under Section 498A IPC which however culminated in a compromise between the parties. The plaintiff it seems has tried to prove cruelty on the foundation of the allegation of adultery but since adultery has not been proved and there being total absence of any ingredients constituting cruelty, the said issue has also been correctly answered against the plaintiff. 17. So far as the issue of desertion is concerned, as per P.W. 4 who is the Gram Pradhan of the village and who is in a place of prominence to throw some light on the said issue, he has stated that both the parties reside in the same house which has been reiterated by P.W.5, though D.W.4 (defendant no. 1) has stated in her cross-examination that she resides in the school premises. It seems that both the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 used to run a school and the defendant no. 1 was the Principal of the said School, who was subsequently removed by the plaintiff when differences cropped up between them. Desertion could have been proved if the defendant no. 1 had forsaken and abandoned the duties and responsibilities of a wife towards the plaintiff but no such allegation has been cemented by the plaintiff through his evidence. On the other hand, D.W.4 has stated about taking care of the plaintiff when he had fallen seriously ill. Even if we discard such assertion by the defendant no. 1, nothing of substance seems to be forthcoming to constitute desertion and this issue has also been rightly answered in favour of the defendant no. 1. 18. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, do not find any reasons to interfere in the impugned judgement and decree dated 09.06.2023 (decree signed on 17.06.2023) passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Suit No. 116/2019 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 19. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.