tremendous sacrifice to make the marriage happy and successful”, accusing the husband of cruelty. From the wife so pleading, the only inference is that even if the husband was not willing to live with the wife, the wife was also not so willing. Moreover, the husband in the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty also pleaded that he, even after 14th January, 1995 “made several telephonic calls to Jaipur between January and May, 1995 and spoke to the parents of the respondent. The respondent refused to talk to the petitioner. The petitioner even talked to the respondent at her office on telephone and tried to reason with her to decide the future, once for all, but the respondent was abusive and she banged the phone, saying that she did not want to have anything to do with the petitioner”, clearly indicating that he, even after 14th January, 1995 and inspite of cruelty inflicted on him by the wife, was willing to live with the wife and wanting the wife to live with him. The wife in her written statement thereto denied that the husband made any such attempts and rather pleaded that “ the petitioner and the respondent had normal relation between January, 95 to May, 95” and “after getting his posting at Delhi the petitioner called the respondent to Delhi in July, 95. She went to his parental home in Janakpuri. Both of them tried for suitable accommodation at Delhi. Meanwhile the parents of the petitioner again misguided the petitioner and he stopped contacting the respondent. Then in Oct. 95 petitioner visited Jaipur and suggested for the transfer of the respondent to Delhi…….”. The wife was however unable to prove any cohabitation after 14th January, 1995. The wife, in her written statement to the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion did not plead that though she was desirous after 14th October, 1996 i.e. when the petition for
