Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the defendant in a suit for maintenance. The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant. The plaintiff was married to the defendant on 20 111952. Till the first week of January 1953, they were residing as husband and wife in the defendant's house at Sasthamangalam. Thereafter, the plaintiff was sent over to her parent's house, and the defendant paid occasional visits to her till August, 1953. After that, the allegation is that the defendant has wilfully deserted her and has neglected to maintain her. The defendant filed H. M. A. No. 5/1958 on 22 81958 on the file of the District Court of Trivandrum, for a declaration that the marriage between himself and the plaintiff was a nullity and for dissolution of the same on the ground that the plaintiff was of unsound mind and she was leading an immoral life. During the pendency of that petition, the defendant sought to amend the petition by alleging that the plaintiff was impotent. H. M. A. No. 5 of 1958 was dismissed by an order dated 1011 1960. There is a finding that the defendant has deserted the plaintiff in that order. The defendant thereafter filed H. M. A. No. 7 of 1961 under Act 25 of 1955 praying for divorce, alleging that the plaintiff was impotent. The basis of the plaintiff's suit was that the defendant had deserted her without her consent and that she was entitled to get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250 per month. She, however, limited her claim to Rs. 200 per month on account of her inability to pay court fees at the rate of Rs. 250/-. 2. In the written statement filed by the defendant, he contended that he has filed H. M. A. No. 7 of 1961 praying for divorce, that the plaintiff was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so, that it is impossible to have sexual union with her, that the marriage was never consummated and that the plaintiff cannot be said to be his wife entitled to claim maintenance from him. He alleged that the impotency of the plaintiff was being enquired into by a panel of doctors appointed by the court to go into the question in H. M. A. 7/1961, that he has no obligation to maintain the plaintiff as she was not capable of discharging the marital obligations, that the amount of maintenance claimed was not justified by the social status of the plaintiff or by the available means and resources of the defendant. 3. The court below found that the defendant had deserted the plaintiff with the requisite intention and that she is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month. 4. The suit has been filed under S.18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Act 78 of 1956. The material portion of the Section reads as follows: "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time. (2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance, (a) If he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or of wilfully neglecting her;" It is clear that in order to succeed in the action, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had deserted her without any reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish. So, the question for consideration is whether the defendant deserted the plaintiff without reasonable cause and without her consent. To determine what constitutes desertion, the first question for consideration is, "the intent of the offending party; there must be in addition to the separation or withdrawal from co-habitation, an latent on the part of the withdrawing party not to return or resume co-habitation. The wrongful intent to desert is indispensable. A mere severance of this relation is not sufficient since there may be separation without desertion and desertion without separation. Continued separation of husband and wife which may be consistent with no intention to wilfully and obstinately to desert is not a desertion" (See Vol. XVII American Jurisprudence 194). The wrongful intent to desert is indispensable. A mere severance of this relation is not sufficient since there may be separation without desertion and desertion without separation. Continued separation of husband and wife which may be consistent with no intention to wilfully and obstinately to desert is not a desertion" (See Vol. XVII American Jurisprudence 194). So, in addition to the factum of separation, the animus deserendi, namely, the intention to bring co-habitation to an end without the consent of the other party shall also be established. But that intention can be gathered only from the circumstances of the case and in particular from the conduct of the party against whom the desertion is alleged. The 1st defendant has admitted that since 1954 he has not gone or resided with the plaintiff. They have not lived as husband and wife since 1954. The plaintiff had sent several letters requesting the defendant to take her back to his house. But the defendant was not amenable to that course. The institution of H. M. A. No. 5/58 and 7/1961 shows beyond any doubt the intention of the defendant. The defendant wanted to get a divorce from the plaintiff for the reasons stated by him in H. M. A. No. 7/1961. There, he alleged that the plaintiff was impotent and was unable to fulfil her marital obligation. That was found against on the basis of Ext. P-2 a report of a panel of Doctors appointed for that purpose. In Ext. P-9, the registered notice dated 27 21961, the defendant had mentioned in clear terms that unless the plaintiff within five days of the receipt of the notice, on her own accord, agrees to an annulment of the marriage said to be subsisting between him and the plaintiff, he will be compelled to resort to appropriate legal proceedings for annulment of the marriage. It is clear beyond doubt that the defendant had evinced his intention to be separated from the plaintiff and he has actually deserted the plaintiff also. That the plaintiff was not a consenting party is clear from her conduct because she has always been requesting the defendant to resume the marital relationship. Therefore, the case that the defendant had deserted the plaintiff with the necessary animus and without her consent has been established and so the plaintiff is entitled to separate maintenance. 5. Mr. That the plaintiff was not a consenting party is clear from her conduct because she has always been requesting the defendant to resume the marital relationship. Therefore, the case that the defendant had deserted the plaintiff with the necessary animus and without her consent has been established and so the plaintiff is entitled to separate maintenance. 5. Mr. Easwara Iyer appearing for the appellant submitted that the plaintiff had stated in her evidence that if the defendant come and reside with her for a period of three months and show his bona fides, she would go and reside with him, and therefore, the desertion, if at all there was any, has really been put an end to and so the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree for separate maintenance. From the conduct of the defendant as disclosed from the evidence we are not satisfied that he wants to resume co-habitation with the plaintiff. We think that the conduct of the defendant in this case has been throughout one of unmitigated cruelty to a woman whom he has married in accordance with the law and the custom of his community. We think it unnecessary to go into the details of his conduct. The allegation in H. M. A. No. 5 of 1958 and H. M. A. No. 7/1961 were wild and imaginary. They have been found to be so by the court. We do not think that the defendant has any intention to resume co-habitation. We, therefore, confirm the finding of the lower court that the defendant had deserted the plaintiff without any reasonable cause and that she is entitled to get separate maintenance. 6. As regards the quantum, we are satisfied that the means and resources of the defendant are sufficient to provide maintenance for the plaintiff at the rate claimed in the plaint. We are also satisfied that the status of the plaintiff deserves that she should be awarded maintenance at that rate. We dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/-per month, with costs in both. Dismissed.