- (1.)PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and de cree dated 16-04-2005, passed by Prin cipal Judge, Family Court, Nainital in Suit No. 21 of 2001, whereby appellant's petition under Section 13 of Hindu Mar riage Act, for decree of divorce, is dis missed.
(2.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record.
Brief fact of the case are that Uday Shankar Prasad (appellant) got married to Sangeeta Rani (respondent) on 20th April 1987 in Danapur, Cantt. , Bihar. After the marriage, the couple lived together and out of the wedlock two children, namely, Abhinav Prasad and Viplav Prasad born on 06-12-1989 and 04-08-1991 respectively. It appears that at the time of marriage the peti tioner / appellant was in job with Pun jab National Bank. However, later on he left the job. Meanwhile, in September 1988, Sangeeta Rani (respondent) got a job as Primary Teacher in Central School. She was transferred at several places. At the time the petition for di vorce was filed by the petitioner / appel lant in Purnia, Bihar, she was posted in Haldwani, District Nainital. The peti tioner sought decree of divorce on the ground that his wife (respondent) has treated him with cruelty. It is further alleged that she has deserted him with out any sufficient reason. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent did not take care to see to the problems of her husband. She never used to apply ver milion on her head, which gave mental cruelty to the petitioner. It is further al leged that the respondent is having illicit relations with other persons.

The respondent contested the pe tition before the trial court and filed her written statement in which she admitted having married to the petitioner. She fur ther admitted that two sons were born out of the wedlock. However, as to the allegations of cruelty and desertion the contents of the plaint were denied by the respondent. She counter alleged that the petitioner is living in adultery with one Rekha, apart from having relations with other lavies. It is further alleged that ii was the petitioner who treated the respondent with cruelty, as he did not bother to see her even during the time of pregnancy. It is further stated in the written statement that Alok Ranjan with whom the petitioner alleges that re spondent had illicit relations is in fact nephew (BHANJA) of the petitioner and he is a young boy of 14-15 year and the allegations made in this regard against the respondent are false. It is further stated that the petitioner has wrongly stated that the couple had no physical relationship after 1997 as even thereaf ter in 1998 the two joined together with children in Darjiling during the leave. It is further alleged that even in 1999 the wife had gone to Purnia to the place of her husband where they lived together for sometime. According to the respond ent it is only in the year 2000, the peti tioner had stopped coming to her. Lastly, it is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner suffers from mental disease.

(3.)ORIGINALLY the petition for divorce was filed before District Judge, Purnia (Bihar) in the year 1999. It appears that the case was transferred to the Princi pal Judge, Family Court, Nainital order dated 16th October 2000, where after the said court took up the hearing, recorded the evidence of P. W. I Uday Shankar Prasad and D. W. I Sangeeta Rani and after hearing them decided the petition, dismissing the same on 16-04-2005. Aggrieved by said order, the peti tioner (husband) filed this appeal before this Court.
There are two grounds on which divorce has been sought by the petitioner (appellant):- (i) the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty and (ii) she has deserted him without suffi cient reason. On both the counts the trial court has given its finding against the petitioner and in favour of the re spondent, rather it has been held that it was the petitioner who treated the re spondent with cruelty.