N. N. Goswamy ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the husband is directed againstthe judgment dated 24/04/1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhiwhereby his petition under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act fordissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE appellant-husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriageby a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was pleaded that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 1 1/12/1970 at New Delhi and in accordance with Hindu customs andrites. After the marriage, the parties resided and cohabited as husband andwife at 5, Raja Ram Building, Ram Nagar, New Delhi. The respondentconceived a child but unfortunately there was a miscarriage. The respondentused to make flying visits to the appellant and stay with him at Delhi as therespondent was working as Nurse in P. G. I. Hospital at Chandigarh. Therespondent at the time of marriage concealed the fact from the husband andhis family that she has filled in a bond of 5 years with the P. G. I. Hospital. This fact was revealed later on and it caused depression in the mind of theappellant. The Appellant brought a prospectus of E,s. I. Hospital, Delhi toenable her to join and live with him in the matrimonial home. The appellant requested the respondent to fill in the form, but the respondent tore ofthe prospectus in presence of the appellant and his parents. The relationsbetween the parties remained cordial till 1974 when the respondent kept onvisiting the appellant at his matrimonial home at Delhi. The appellantrequested the respondent that she should come and stay with him at Delhiand he would arrange for some employment for her in any of the hospitals atdelhi, but the respondent flately refused. The appellant s brother andsister-in-law went to attend a marriage at Chandigarh in 1980. They wentand met the respondent at the hostel along with other relatives and requestedher to accompany them. The respondent, however refused to leave Chandigarh and come to Delhi. Similarly other relations of the appellant also madeefforts, but without any success. Finally, the appellant went to Chandigarhin December, 1981 and met the respondent in her hostel, he made efforts topersuade the respondent to return to the matrimonial home, but she flatelyrefused and went to the extent of telling the appellant to give her divorcethen and there. Similarly other relations of the appellant also madeefforts, but without any success. Finally, the appellant went to Chandigarhin December, 1981 and met the respondent in her hostel, he made efforts topersuade the respondent to return to the matrimonial home, but she flatelyrefused and went to the extent of telling the appellant to give her divorcethen and there. The efforts of one Dr. S. Bhatnagar, a near relation of therespondent also failed, and he expressed his regrets and inability to reconcilethe parties by his letter which has been placed on record. ( 3 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondent. She howeverdid not contest the petition and the petition was tried ex-parte. ( 4 ) THE appellant examined himself as Public Witness 1 and his father as P. W. 2. The appellant, as Public Witness 1, proved his entire case as set up in the petition. He further deposed that before the marriage, the middle man who hadarranged the marriage had told them that the respondent would be transferred to Delhi. The said middleman was the maternal uncle of the respondent and he was at the relevant time working in the Ministry of Health. Hefurther stated that the respondent had been coming to Delhi after every 5 or6 months, but stopped coming from 1974/1975. He deposed to all the effortsmade by him for bringing back the respondent to the matrimonial home. P. W. 2, the father of the appellant deposed that after the marriage betweenthe parties, he wanted them to set up their house at Delhi but because of theattitude of the respondent, this could not be done. He also stated that thematernal uncle of the respondent had told them before the marriage that hewould get the respondent transferred to Delhi. The respondent had beencoming to Delhi on a holiday after every 3 or 4 months, but she stoppedcoming from 1976. His efforts to secure a job of the respondent in E. S. I. Hospital at Delhi also failed because the respondent was not willing even tofill in the form for the said job. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge on perusal of the petition and the evidencecame to the conclusion that the appellant had not pleaded any specific agreement that after the marriage, the parties were to live togther at Delhi. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge on perusal of the petition and the evidencecame to the conclusion that the appellant had not pleaded any specific agreement that after the marriage, the parties were to live togther at Delhi. Inthe absence of the said agreement, it could not be said that the respondentwas not Justified in keeping away from the appellant. The parties were admittedly working at different places and as such the respondent could notbe expected to give up her lucrative job with the uncertainty in Delhi abouther employment and prospect of good career. These observations of thelearned Trial Judge are obviously based on a judgment of the Division Benchof this Court in the case of Smt. Swaraj Garg v. K. M. Oarg, reported asxiv (1978) D. L. T. 18. That case, however, in my opinion, is distinguishablefrom the facts of the present case. ( 6 ) IN the present case, it is true that the appellant hag not specificallypleaded about the agreement between the parties to live at Delhi at the timeof marriage, but a reading of the entire petition leaves no doubt that alteastthe appellant was under the belief that the parties would live at Delhi aftertheir marriage, particularly, in view of the understanding given to him by thematernal uncle of the respondent who had intervened for getting the parties married. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent had even concealedthe fact from the appellant and his family members that she had filled in abond of 5 years with the P. G. I. Hospital at Chandigarh and when that fact. was revealed, the same caused mental depression in the mind of the appellant. This averment indicates that the appellant had a reasonable belief that therespondent would reside with him at Delhi. From the pleadings as also fromthe evidence, it cannot be disputed that the parties have not lived togethersince 1975 or latest 1976 and have not cohabited since that date. The respondent has also not come to the matrimonial home since that time. Her attitudein not even contesting the petition as also the appeal in this Court inspite ofservice leaves no manner of doubt that she has no intention to resume cohabitation. The respondent has also not come to the matrimonial home since that time. Her attitudein not even contesting the petition as also the appeal in this Court inspite ofservice leaves no manner of doubt that she has no intention to resume cohabitation. There is no reason to disbelive the averments made in the petition as also the statement of the appellant to the effect that she went to theextent of asking him to give her divorce when he last visited her at Chandigarh in 1981. All there facts taken together lead to an irresistable conclusion that the respondent has been keeping away from the appellant withthe intention never to resume cohabitation. In these circumstances, I am ofthe opinion that the desertion on the part of the respondent is clearly proved. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed and themarriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Since therespondent was proceeded ex-parte both before learned trial Judge and inthis Court, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.