( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the husband Ram Chander Lamba against the judgement of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 8th August, 1984 dismissing his petition u/s. 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 2 ) THE facts are briefly set out. Ram Chander and Adarsh were married on 26th February, 1975. The marriage was solemnised, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, at Delhi. Thereafter Ram Chander and Adarsh lived together at A-127, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. ( 3 ) SOMETIME in August, 1976, (the actual date is a matter of dispute between the parties), Adarsh went to stay with her parents. On 27th-28th of September, 1976, she gave birth to a daughter at the Vohra Nursing Home. The little girl was named Garima. ( 4 ) ON 26th November, 1980, Ram Chander filed a petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. He alleged therein, that soon after their marriage, Adarsh started pressurising him to live with her parents in their house at Punjabi Bagh. As he was the only son of his parents and his father was blind and both his sisters were married, he did not succumb to this pressure. But, despite this, Adarsh continued to pressurise him to give as a "ghar Jawai" at Punjabi Bagh. Apart from this, she used to go off to her parents home some for about 10 to 15 days in a month, without his consent, and did not take care of this elderly parents. He also asserts that she went off to her parents house in January, 1976 and returned only in June, 1976, i. e. after about four months. ( 5 ) HIS further case is, that as she was employed as a post graduate teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School for Girls at Punjabi Bagh, she would often visit her parents after school hours, without his prior consent. ( 6 ) HE also alleges that on the morning of 10th August, 1976, she left the matrimonial home, without his consent, for her parents house, despite the fact that he had promised to take her there in the evening. He also asserts that she took all her ornaments and clothes with her, except a marriage ring. ( 6 ) HE also alleges that on the morning of 10th August, 1976, she left the matrimonial home, without his consent, for her parents house, despite the fact that he had promised to take her there in the evening. He also asserts that she took all her ornaments and clothes with her, except a marriage ring. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, on or about the 13th or 14th of August, 1976, he went to bring her back but she refused to return and was insulted by her father. His mother and sister, Santosh Chopra, also went subsequently to Adarsh s parents house to bring her back but once again she refused to return. Eight to ten days thereafter he telephoned, as he wanted to ask her to return, but her father refused to even call her to the telephone. ( 8 ) HIS case further is that on 18th September, 1976 when he was informed about the birth of his daughter he went to the Vohra Nursing Home with his sister to see Adarsh and the new baby. His mother and the landlady also visited them at the said nursing home but Adarsh s father insulted them and refused to agree to Adarsh returning with the child to the family home. ( 9 ) A number of attempts were made for reconciliation thereafter but these did not fructify due to the adamant attitude of Adarsh and her family. ( 10 ) IT is also averred that on 31st January, 1978, Ram Chander underwent an operation pertaining to pillonidelcinus. Despite sending information to Adarsh she never visited his though he was in the Hindu Rao Hospital for about 17 days i. e. from 30th January, to 1978 15th February, 1978. ( 11 ) IT is also asserted that no attempts at reconciliation were made by Adarsh. It is the basis of these averments, that the appellant has alleged that Adarsh had deserted him for a continuous period of more than two years, and had withdrawn from his society on 10 August, 1976, without by reasonable can and against his wishes and consent. ( 12 ) ADARSH contested the petition. She filed a written statement, affirmed on 13th January, 1981. She raised a number of preliminary pleas, including constructive is desertion. She alleged that Ram Chander had been cruel both to her and their daughter Garima. ( 12 ) ADARSH contested the petition. She filed a written statement, affirmed on 13th January, 1981. She raised a number of preliminary pleas, including constructive is desertion. She alleged that Ram Chander had been cruel both to her and their daughter Garima. Further, that with a view to misappropriate the articles, estimated at about Rs. 80,000/-, given at the time of marriage, he had withheld them from her and had falsely alleged in his petition, that she had taken away her ornaments. In fact, she asserts that all the goods, clothes and ornaments, except one gold ring are with Ram Chander and his parents. ( 13 ) SHE also avers that she left the matrimonial home only on 30th August, 1976, in an advanced stage of pregnancy, and did not take her ornaments or house-hold goods or extra clothes with her. According to her, despite the ill treatment, she left the matrimonial home on 30th August, 1976, only as a temporary measure, for the birth of the child. She had every intention and desire of returning to the matrimonial home with the baby. But Ram Chander and his parents treated her and the child with utter neglect and cruelty and made it impossible for her to return. He did not even visit her in the nursing home, where she was from 27th September, 1976 to 4th October, 1976, though she had undergone a ceasarean operation for giving birth to the child. Neither the nursing home nor the medical expenses were borne by Ram Chander or his family and they did not even come to take her and the child back home. ( 14 ) SHE has also asserted that as the child i was a daughter, Ram Chander was not interested and wanted, perhaps, to remarry and get "fresh matrimonial property". ( 15 ) SHE has specifically denied the allegations about having ressurised Ram Chander to leave his parents house and settle down in her parents house as Ghar Jawai. She has also denied that she harassed him or left the matrimonial home for long durations. However, she admits that she stayed with her parents from 9th January, 1976 to 16th March, 1976. Her reason for doing so is that due to her pregnancy she found it difficult to travel a by bus everyday to the school at Punjabi Bagh. She has also denied that she harassed him or left the matrimonial home for long durations. However, she admits that she stayed with her parents from 9th January, 1976 to 16th March, 1976. Her reason for doing so is that due to her pregnancy she found it difficult to travel a by bus everyday to the school at Punjabi Bagh. ( 16 ) SHE further asserts that her husband and his family were greedy and wanted her to give her entire salary, of about Rs. 1400/- to them without keeping anything even for pocket expenses. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to her, she made a number of attempts through her family members and relatives and friends for reconciliation but Ram Chander did not respond. In fact, it is he who insulted her and he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. ( 18 ) THE following issues were framed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi : 1. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition ? 2. Whether the respondent is entitled to the return/refund of the articles mentioned in her application u/s. 27 of the HM Act. If so, to what extent ? 3. Relief. ( 19 ) THE learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that there was overwhelming evidence to show that Ram Chander wilfully neglected Adarsh because apparently he did not even contact her after she left till 28th September, 1976, when she had the baby. This was, despite the fact, that he was aware that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and there were some complications. Even on 28th September 1976, he made only a flying visit and made no arrangements for her or the child s care nor did he pay any of the hospital expenses. He did not even ask her to come back to the matrimonial home with the child. ( 20 ) THE learned Additional District Judge also held that no sincere attempts at reconciliation were made by Ram Chander. ( 21 ) ACCORDING to the learned Additional District Judge the wilful neglect of Adarsh and the child, at a time when Ram Chander should have been most attentive and caring, is a reasonable cause for her to stay away from him. ( 21 ) ACCORDING to the learned Additional District Judge the wilful neglect of Adarsh and the child, at a time when Ram Chander should have been most attentive and caring, is a reasonable cause for her to stay away from him. ( 22 ) THE court also noticed that during the proceedings Adarsh had repeated volunteered to accompany Ram Chander and live with him but he flatly refused to take her back. ( 23 ) THE learned Additional District Judge held that Ram Chander was not entitled to ask for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion, when he himself had created a situation which forced the respondent to stay away from him accordingly, he dismissed the petition with costs. ( 24 ) ON the question of return of the articles under Section 27 of the Act, he held that since no decree for dissolution of marriage was being granted, the question of giving any other relief did not arise, and, in any case, the articles mentioned in the application were outside the scope of S. 27 of the Act. ( 25 ) MR. O. N. Vohra, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the respondent was a "proven liar" as her averments in the pleadings were at variance with her statements its evidence. According to learned counsel, the respondent s case of cruelty was demolished by her very statement that at the time she left, there had not been a quarrel. ( 26 ) LEARNED counsel submitted, that the crux of the problem was that the respondent belonged to a higher class family, had a better education, earned a better salary and came from a larger and more comfortable home, as such, she could not adjust to the matrimonial home. Further that she foiled all attempts at reconciliation. ( 27 ) LEARNED counsel also submitted that desertion, within the ambit of Section 13, of the Act, had been clearly established. In the alternative, it was contended that the case came within the explanation of S. 13 of the Act, as there was wilful neglect by the wife. ( 28 ) IT is well settled that desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case. In the alternative, it was contended that the case came within the explanation of S. 13 of the Act, as there was wilful neglect by the wife. ( 28 ) IT is well settled that desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts and conduct and expression of intention, both anterior and subsequent to the actual act of separation have to be viewed, in order to decide whether the animus deserendi existed. The offence of desertion commences only when the fact of separation and the animus deserendi co-exist. Though, it is not necessary that they should commence at the same time. See : Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176 . ( 29 ) IN Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena alias Mota, AIR 1964 SC 40 , Ayyanagar, J. , following the abovementioned decision in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah, cites a passage from Halsbury s Laws of England (3rd Edn.) Vol. 12 with approval and notes : "in its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other s consent, and without reasonable cause. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage". ( 30 ) THE Supreme Court also opined that it is settled law that the burden of proving desertion, "the factum" as well as the "animus deserendi" is on the petitioner; and he or she has to establish beyond reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of the court, that the desertion, throughout the entire period of two years before the presentation of the petition was without just cause. In other words, even if the wife, where she is the deserting spouse, does not prove just cause, for her living apart, the petitioner-husband has still to satisfy the court that the desertion was without just cause. However, once desertion is established there is no obligation on the deserted husband to appeal to the deserting spouse to change her mind, and the circumstance that the deserted husband makes no effort to take steps to effect a reconciliation with the wife does not debar him from obtaining relief, as the deserting spouse is presumed to continue in desertion, so long as, she evinces no sincere intention to effect a reconciliation and return to the matrimonial home. But if before the end of the period of two years, or the filing of the petition his or her conduct is such as to provide a just cause, for the deserting spouse, for not resuming cohabitation, the petition cannot succeed. ( 31 ) IN the background of the law, as above noticed, one has to look at the facts. It is always difficult to determine if and when desertion commences. As, apart from the physical act of separation, the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end has to be established. For this the conduct of the parties has to be looked at. Did Adarsh leave the matrimonial home in August, 1976 with the intention of never returning or did she go to her parents home, as is wont, because she was pregnant and intended to return after the baby was born ? And was there just cause for her not returning to the matrimonial home because of Ram Chander s behaviour during the period of her advanced pregnancy and the birth of the baby ? ( 32 ) A great deal of argument has been addressed by counsel as to whether Adarsh left on 10th August, 1976 or 30th August, 1976. I feel it is not necessary to dilate on this aspect in the facts and circumstances of this case, which are set out. Adarsh was working as a teacher in a school at Punjabi Bagh. Her parents resided at Punjabi Bagh, while her matrimonial home was at Ashok Vihar. As she was pregnant, she did not want to travel too much by bus and started spending time, off and on, with her parents. It is normal and quite natural and in keeping with Indian tradition, for a young woman to go to her parents home for the birth of her first child. The child was born on 28th September, 1976, and a ceasarean operation had to be performed as there were certain complications. So whether she went to her parents home a month before the birth of the child or a month and a half before the said birth will not make a difference in deciding whether the intention to bring cohabitation to an end existed at that time. So whether she went to her parents home a month before the birth of the child or a month and a half before the said birth will not make a difference in deciding whether the intention to bring cohabitation to an end existed at that time. ( 33 ) THE whole trend of the goings and comings over the period of pregnancy would indicate that there was no intention to permanently foresake the matrimonial home. Even Ram Chander has said that he was agreeable to take her to her parents home on the evening of 10th August, 1976, but she left in the morning. This act of going in the morning, instead of waiting to go with him in the evening, is not such, as would lead to the inference that animus deserendi existed. Apart from that, it is very unlikely that a woman who is in an advanced stage of pregnancy and about to deliver a child would like to repudiate her marriage, unless there is provocation to do so. See : Nirmal Gupta v. V. K. Gupta, F. A. O. No. 97 of 1977, decided on 30th March, 1978. ( 34 ) IN the present case, there appears to have been no grave provocation, because admittedly the parties did not quarrel, on the date when Adarsh left the matrimonial home, whether it was the 10th or the 30th of August, 1976. ( 35 ) IT would, therefore, appear to me that there was no animus deserendi, at the time Adarsh left for her parents home, for the purpose of having the baby and returning thereafter. ( 36 ) NOW how did Ram Chander behave after she went to her parents home. He knew where she was and that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Whatever might have been the position earlier, it is not in dispute that neither he nor his family members visited or communicated with Adarsh, between 30th August, 1976 and 28th September, 1976 i. e. for a period of about one month. Surely, this is very abnormal behaviour on the part of a husband, whose wife is in an advanced stage of pregnancy, especially, when, admittedly, there was a telephone in her parents home and a telephone at his office. Surely, this is very abnormal behaviour on the part of a husband, whose wife is in an advanced stage of pregnancy, especially, when, admittedly, there was a telephone in her parents home and a telephone at his office. ( 37 ) FURTHER, even if Ram Chander is to be believed, that he visited the Vohra Nursing Home, with his sister at about 11 a. m. on 28th September, 1976, after the baby was born, he admittedly did so only for a brief while and only on that one occasion. The Vohra Nursing Home is in Rajuori Gardens which is not at a very great distance from Ashok Vihar where Ram Chander was residing. Adarsh was admittedly in the nursing home from 27th September, 1976 to 4th October, 1976. This is hardly the conduct expected of a loving and caring husband, whose wife has borne him a child and had to undergo a ceasarean operation in the process, to make just one brief visit to see her and the baby, all the while she is there. ( 38 ) IT has also been stated that the child was unwell and had jaundice and had to be rushed to the Ganga Ram Hospital, but even if this has not been proved, the question still arises as to whether it is normal for a husband to visit his wife just once and ignore her thereafter. He did not even bother to come and take her back or make any arrangements for her and the baby, financial or otherwise. His whole attitude towards her is one of callousness and neglect. ( 39 ) IN these circumstances, it is quite natural for a wife, who has just given birth to a daughter, to feel totally neglected and ignore. She is likely to be apprehensive, that if this is the there treatment melted out to her, at a time when she is entitled to except special affection, what sort of treatment will she get if she forces her-self back to the matrimonial home ? ( 40 ) IN Smt Kamla v. Kishan Gehani (1984) 1 DMC 195, Hon ble Mr. Justice N. N. Goswamy has observed that it is an admitted fact that the respondent knew about the approximate date of the delivery of the child when the appellant left the matrimonial home. ( 40 ) IN Smt Kamla v. Kishan Gehani (1984) 1 DMC 195, Hon ble Mr. Justice N. N. Goswamy has observed that it is an admitted fact that the respondent knew about the approximate date of the delivery of the child when the appellant left the matrimonial home. In spite of that admittedly he never made any inquiry about the birth of the child or the health of the appellant till the end of October, 1978 while the child was born on 15th September, 1978. In the facts and circumstances the learned Judge felt that the wife could not be held guilty of desertion, and if the blame had to go on anybody, it was the husband who must be blamed for deserting the wife. ( 41 ) IN Om Prakash Narang v. Prabha Narang, 1980 0 Hindulr 176, a Division Bench of this Court opined that desertion is not merely a physical act of leaving a place, but it is a withdrawal from a state of things. It is not merely physical, it is primarily mental. The court further opined that in the first instance it is difficult to believe that a wife who is due to give birth to a child would readily jeopardise the future of the child by entertaining an intention to break up the matrimonial home even when she physically left the matrimonial home. ( 42 ) IN the circumstances of the case as outlined above, it would appear that Adarsh had every intention of returning to the matrimonial home after the birth of the child, but her husband s conduct thereafter, which was strange and abnormal and positively neglectful, restrained her from doing so. ( 43 ) THE case of the appellant that Adarsh was harassing him because she wanted him to live as "ghar Jawai" with her father does not appear to be correct. This is because, it is not disputed that Adarsh s brother, who was married, was living with her parents. Further, P. W. 5 Munshi Ram has also stated that Adarsh s father had never asked Ram Chander to live with him in his house at Punjabi Bagh. Ram Chander s mother Shiani Devi has stated that Adarsh s sisters were married but were not living with Adarsh s parents. Adarsh s father, Mr. Further, P. W. 5 Munshi Ram has also stated that Adarsh s father had never asked Ram Chander to live with him in his house at Punjabi Bagh. Ram Chander s mother Shiani Devi has stated that Adarsh s sisters were married but were not living with Adarsh s parents. Adarsh s father, Mr. S. R. Sethi has asserted that he never insisted on Ram Chander coming to live with him as Ghar Jawai. ( 44 ) WHEN admittedly, Adarsh s married sisters were not living with their parents, there does not appear to have been any precedent in the matter. Further, if Adarsh did not have a brother, it might have been likely that her parents would like her to live with them. But once it is clear, that Adarsh s married brother was already with them, it is hardly likely that they would have wanted Ram Chander to live with them as Ghar Jawai. ( 45 ) THE view point I have expressed gains support from the opinion stated in Hari Chand v. Bimla Devi, (1981) 2 DMC 36, wherein Hon ble Mr. Justice D. K. Kapur, as he then was opined that in dealing with human relations, one has to keep in view, the fact. that the social position of an abandoned woman is quite inferior in Indian society. Moreover, common sense would show that a wife does not ordinarily abandon the husband. In that case the learned Judge disbelieved the story of the husband, that the reason for quarrel between the parties, was that the wife wanted the husband to live at her parents house as "ghar Jawai". The story was disbelieved, because the wife had two brothers, one of whom had been married and was living with the wife s father. The learned Judge observed, that it was hardly possible for the wife s father to want the petitioner to live as Ghar Jawai, when he had two sons already. ( 46 ) AS such, in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that Ram Chander has not been able to establish that the desertion was without just cause. ( 46 ) AS such, in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that Ram Chander has not been able to establish that the desertion was without just cause. ( 47 ) THEREFORE, since desertion as contemplated by law has not been established by the appellant, the question whether any steps, to persuade the wife to come back thereafter, were taken by either of the parties or whether the husband was expected to chase her for reconciliation, are not relevant. ( 48 ) THE only other submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, and raised for the first time, was that the real problem was one of non-adjustment by the wife, as she came from a higher strata of society. This submission is not supported by evidence, nor is it mentioned in the petition u/s. 13 (1) (ib) of the Act, filed by Ram Chander. In fact, the appellant s mother has stated that her daughter-in-law s behaviour was quite normal. The appellant himself has stated that there was no dispute between them. ( 49 ) ACCORDINGLY and for the reasons outlined above, I dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.