JUDGMENT : Deoki Nandan, J. This is a Plaintiff-wife's second appeal in a suit for maintenance. The fact of the marriage between the parties is disputed but the defence was that there was a dissolution of the marriage between the parties in accordance with caste custom. The trial court decreed the suit but the lower appellate court has reversed the same. 2. The fact of the dissolution of the marriage by caste custom was witnessed by a document which is in the nature of a stamped agreement said to have been executed by the parties. It is Ex. A-4 on the record. The Plaintiff denied her thumb impressions on the stamp paper. The lower appellate court has believed the defence evidence including that of the Finger Print Expert and has come to the finding that the marriage between the parties was in fact dissolved, as alleged by the Defendant, by caste custom. It is further noticeable in this connection that the husband had initiated a criminal proceeding u/s 498 Criminal Procedure Code against the wife and her brother. That matter was compromised and it was agreed between them that they will get the dispute settled by the Panchayat of the Biradari. The settlement alleged to have been so arrived at was the dissolution of the marriage on payment of Rs. 500/- in cash as compensation by the husband to the wife, in accordance with the decision of the Panchayat held after the compromise in the said criminal proceeding. 3. Mr. Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellant argued firstly that the lower appellate court had not come to grips with the reasons given by the trial court for believing the Plaintiff's case and disbelieving the Defendant's case, and that otherwise too the judgment of the lower appellate court was vitiated in law. Having heard Mr. Sankatha Rai on this point and having gone through the judgment of the lower appellate court I do not find it possible to say that the judgment is based on no evidence or is otherwise vitiated in law. The fact of the Panchayat is corroborated by the document, Ex. A-4. Its genuineness was denied by the Plaintiff but the thumb impression on the document was found to be hers, according to the opinion of the Government Hand-Writing Expert who was examined on behalf of the Defendant. The fact of the Panchayat is corroborated by the document, Ex. A-4. Its genuineness was denied by the Plaintiff but the thumb impression on the document was found to be hers, according to the opinion of the Government Hand-Writing Expert who was examined on behalf of the Defendant. I think that the lower appellate court has rightly relied on that opinion for holding that the thumb impression on the document, Ex. A-4, alleged to be that of the Plaintiff was really hers, and if that be so it can not be disputed that the parties had agreed to dissolve the marriage and to live separately with effect from 12th September, 1966. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that the agreement was against public policy inasmuch as a divorce by mutual consent was not permitted by the Hindu Marriage Act, and even if it were open earlier according to custom, it came to be prohibited by the insertion of Section 13B into the Hindu Marriage Act, by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. It can be had only by following the procedure prescribed by that provision and not in any other manner. It can not be disputed that a marriage could not be dissolved by mutual consent. It can not also be disputed that even after the insertion of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage can be dissolved by mutual consent only in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein and not in any other manner. Nevertheless Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Hindu Marriage Act saves any right recognized by custom for dissolution of a Hindu Marriage and that is what the case of the Defendant was in the present case. He said that in the community to which the parties belong, a marriage could be dissolved by chhutta-chhutti in accordance with the caste custom. On this, Mr. Sankatha Rai argued that the incidents of the caste custom have not been pleaded nor has it been proved that the dissolution of the marriage was in the form prescribed by the caste custom. On this, Mr. Sankatha Rai argued that the incidents of the caste custom have not been pleaded nor has it been proved that the dissolution of the marriage was in the form prescribed by the caste custom. While it can not be disputed that a custom has to be specifically set up and has to be proved by the party who wants to take advantage of it in derogation of the general law, it is equally true that the existence of the custom of the chhutta-chhutti is well known in the community to which the parties belong, and indeed the fact of the existence of such a custom was not disputed by or on behalf of the Plaintiff. It was said that the precise incidents of the custom were not alleged or proved and in the absence of such an allegation, the court could not know whether the form prescribed by the custom for a chhutta chhutti was followed or not. Probably a presumption may be drawn in favour of the due observance of the formalities prescribed by the custom, or may be such a presumption can not be drawn. Be that as it may, I do not consider it necessary to decide the point in this case. I say so because under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance: 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 wilfully neglecting her. 5. There can be no desertion where a wife agrees as in the present case, to dissolve the marriage with her husband and releases the husband from the obligation of living with her and of maintaining her, in consideration of payment of the sum of Rs. 500/- which was agreed to be paid by the husband as compensation to the wife, vide Ex. A-4. 6. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.