JUDGMENT This Second Appeal arises out of an application filed by the appellant under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion on the part of the wife. When the petition came before the learned Sub-Judge, he granted a decree for judicial separation, but on appeal to the District Judge, the petition was dismissed. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The appellant is an employee of Southern Railways. He married the respondent in 1950 at Srivilliputtur. At the time of the marriage, he was relieving clerk, with the result he had to move from place to place. For one year he was taking the respondent wherever he has been transferred. But after 1951, he left his wife in his parents’ house in a village called Malli and whenever there was opportunity, he used to go to the village and visit his wife and children. In the year 1955, when he became a permanent clerk, he wanted to bring his wife, but she was not willing to stay with him. But subsequently in the year 1956, she quarrelled with her mother-in-law and went away to her parents’ house. After patiently waiting for two years, the appellant filed the present application for judicial separation. But the respondent's case is that many a times she requested her husband to take her wherever he has been posted, but he was evading with some ulterior purpose. Her case is he was leading an immoral life and purposely he did not set up a family. When he had been transferred permanently to Madurai, she requested him to set up a separate house at Madurai; but he purposely avoided in setting up his own house as he was leading an immoral life and by that time also developed criminal intimacy with her brother's wife. She attempted to reform her husband's ways and prevented him from continuing the illicit relationship with her brother's wife. He ill-treated her cruelly and drove her away from his house at Malli to her parents’ house. In the year 1957 when a notice was sent to her by her husband, she expressed her willingness to come to Madurai and live with him, but to her surprise she found that her husband and Shanmugavadivu were living together. He ill-treated her cruelly and drove her away from his house at Malli to her parents’ house. In the year 1957 when a notice was sent to her by her husband, she expressed her willingness to come to Madurai and live with him, but to her surprise she found that her husband and Shanmugavadivu were living together. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial. The question that was considered by the lower Court is whether the appellant's wife deserted him continuously for a period of two years prior to the filing of this petition. During the trial, she deposed that her husband ill-treated her by beating and when she went to Madurai with a request to set up a separate house, her husband offered her Rs.200 if she should execute a document terminating the marriage tie. But this was not believed by the Subordinate Judge. But the respondent mainly contended that when her husband is carrying on an immoral life with her own brother's wife, it is impossible for her to lead a family life with her husband. In order to prove her case, she filed the entire correspondence passed between the appellant and the respondent's brother's wife. The Subordinate Judge considered all the documentary evidence and gave a finding that there is only a mere suspicion and much reliance cannot be placed on this correspondence to give a finding that she has got justifiable reason from staying away from her husband. The learned Subordinate Judge granted a decree for judicial separation as he found that she deserted her husband for a period of two years. But on appeal, the District Judge once again considered all the correspondence passed between the parties and he came to the conclusion that it is not a case of suspicion and the respondent has got sufficient reason to stay away from her husband. He also gave a further finding that she was in his parents’ house till 1956 ‘and only when she began to question her husband about the immoral conduct of her husband with her brother's wife, he drove her away to her parent's house. It is not a case of desertion and he dismissed the petition. Now in this appeal, I find that she did not leave the appellant's parents’ house voluntarily but that the appellant is responsible to drive her away to her parent's house. It is not a case of desertion and he dismissed the petition. Now in this appeal, I find that she did not leave the appellant's parents’ house voluntarily but that the appellant is responsible to drive her away to her parent's house. In regard to the letters that passed between the spouses, I myself have gone through the correspondence and I feel that the contents of the letters passed between the appellant and the respondent's brother's wife are unnatural and unusual expressions of love and affection suggesting that the appellant is infatuated with his wife's brother's wife. Certainly, no Hindu woman can tolerate such a situation and it is impossible for her to establish a sweet home with her husband. It has not been proved that she deserted her husband continuously for a period of two years. When the appellant gave notice on 21st January, 1957, calling upon her to join him with her children she immediately sent a reply notice that she is ready and willing to join her husband provided he makes the arrangement to take her back. The appellant did not prove that he made any such arrangement nor any attempt has been made to take her back with him to the place where he was working at that time. Further, when she left her husband's parents’ house there was no indication that she left her husband's house for good. On the other hand, she lived in her husband's parents’ house continuously for a period of five years. It was only when she questioned the conduct and character of her husband, he drove her away. There was not intention or animus decidendi when she left her husband's parents’ house. When her husband does not set up a separate house, she stayed in his parents’ house, but when she was driven away by her husband from his parents’ house, it is not a case of desertion. In my judgment, the husband has failed to discharge the onus which is on him of satisfying the Court first that the desertion was without any reasonable cause. In these circumstances, I find that there is no substance in this appeal. This appeal is dismissed. No costs. R.M.-----Appeal dismissed.