JUDGMENT 1. - We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at a great length and are satisfied that special appeal is devoid of substance. 2. The respondent Swaran Kumar, husband of the appellant, filed an application for grant of a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion for a period of more than two years on the part of the wife (appellant) with an intention not to return to her matrimonial home. The learned trial court, namely, the District Judge, Kota, after a detailed discussion of the evidence led by both the parties, came to a firm conclusion that the wife (appellant) was not forcibly turned out by the husband not there was constructive desertion. On the other hand, the e went away with ornaments and a cash of Rs. 7,000/- along with her ant daughter, to her parents house with a view never to return to matrimonial home. This inference is writ large on the conduct of the wife appellant. 3. The marriage took place sometime in September, 1969 and after about three years, litigation started between the parties. The first move was made by the wife to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in Delhi Court in October, 1972. Then in May 1973, an application for issue of a search warrant was made by her parents before the Court in Kota. It appears that some common friends intervened and by document Ex. 1, it was settled between the parties to finally cast the dye and bring to end to the matrimonial relationship. The document was got executed on May 24, 1973. Thereafter no doubt, the wife sent some letters to the husband, but none of them contained a bona fide offer by the wife to return to her husband's home and resume matrimonial ties. 4. We do not consider it necessary to make a detailed reference to the evidence discussed by the learned District Judge, whose findings have been accepted by.the learned Single Judge. But we may mention one important event, which transpired a little before May 24, 1973. The wife made a complaint that the husband had caused burns to vital and delicate parts of her body whereat the husband's case was that the burns e caused by an accident while the wife in the kitchen. But we may mention one important event, which transpired a little before May 24, 1973. The wife made a complaint that the husband had caused burns to vital and delicate parts of her body whereat the husband's case was that the burns e caused by an accident while the wife in the kitchen. This incident me the subject matter of an enquiry before the trial court which came to the conclusion that the wife's allegation was false and husband was not, in any way, responsible for the burns. We are satisfied that the wife has deserted the husband without reasonable cause lost the wishes of her husband. We are told that divorce proceedings e already been started. 5. After having given our careful consideration to all the points argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, we have come to the conclusion that the appellant and the respondent cannot live together and no useful purpose will by served by prolonging their agony. 6. In this view of the matter, we do not see force in this appeal and hereby dismiss it summarily.Appeal dismissed. *******