she came back in May, 2004 and threw out the appellant from his own house. To the contrary, the respondent has asserted that the appellant himself left the matrimonial home in May, 2004. While she has asserted so, she has failed to give any explanations of the circumstances of separation in the year 2004, either in her affidavit of evidence or by way of suggestion to the appellant, in the cross-examination. On the other hand, the appellant has been categorical in stating that the respondent herself left the matrimonial home in March, 2004 after she had filed a false complaint against him in Police Station, Mehrauli in which he was detained by the police for the whole night and was let off in the next morning, after being made to sign on two to three blank papers. There is not a whisper of word on behalf of the respondent, to explain the circumstances of separation. 53. Her testimony has been conspicuous by silence in explaining if she ever made any endeavour or effort to join back the company of the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant has explained the conduct of the respondent over a period of about twenty years, which had made it extremely oppressive for him to continue in the matrimonial relationship. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is the respondent, who has not been able to explain the circumstances as to why the appellant left the house. Rather, the evidence and the admissions of the respondent establish that the appellant has always discharged his matrimonial obligations towards the respondent and her family. Such deprivation of conjugal relationship by the respondent since the year 2004, with no effort of re-conciliation, is the ultimate act of rejection of the matrimonial relationship amounting to the extreme cruelty to which a man can be subjected, warranting dissolution of the marriage, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghogh v. Jaya
