JUDGMENT P. K. Palli, J.—The appellant/wife, feeling aggrieved against the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband, is in appeal before this Court. 2. Divorce petition was filed by the respondent/husband stating that the marriage between the parties had taken place on November 25, 1988 and the parties lived together till middle of July 1989. No issue is said to have born out of the wedlock and the wife is said to have left her matrimonial home without the consent of the husband and started residing with her parents. 3. The wife, as alleged in the petition, was always avoiding to ischarge her matrimonial obligations and picked up unnecessary quarrels with the husband and his parents on one pretext or the other. She was never willing to live with the husband though the husband always tried to keep her happy and never misbehaved. It is also said that she initiated proceedings under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and her application was allowed by the learned Magistrate on November 27, 1991 and an amount of Rs. 300 per month stood allowed to her by way of maintenance. A revision was filed against this order and during the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, efforts were made for a settlement and the parties agreed to live together as husband and wife and the appellant/wife agreed to discharge her matrimonial obligations. 4. According to the respondent/husband, inspite of the compromise having been arrived at, the wife never turned up to live with him despite his several visits to bring her. She refused to accompany him and ultimately a notice was sent to her on November 16, 1992 to which a reply was sent on January 4, 1993. When all the efforts to bring the appellant to matrimonial home failed, the present petition for divorce was filed by the respondent/husband on twin grounds of desertion and cruelty. 5. In the reply to the petition the appellant/wife denied that she was reluctant to live with the respondent/husband. It was also denied that she was taking up quarrels with the husband or with his parents. In fact, she came out with the plea that she was not treated well by the husband. It was also denied that she left the house of her own. It was also denied that she was taking up quarrels with the husband or with his parents. In fact, she came out with the plea that she was not treated well by the husband. It was also denied that she left the house of her own. The fact that a settlement had been arrived at during the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, stands admitted According to her, the husband had assured that he would treat her nicely and she would be given a good treatment. It was denied that the husband had made several visits to bring her back to the matrimonial home. It was said that he never went to her father in order to bring her back and the allegations made in this respect stand completely denied. It was, of course, stated in the reply that she is always willing and intends to join the company of the husband, provided, he undertakes to keep her with dignity, love and affection. The allegations of desertion and cruelty were denied and it was stated that it is the husband who has treated the appellant/wife with cruelty. 6. On appreciation of the material placed by both the parties on record, the learned Court found that the respondent/husband has been able to prove the grounds taken by him for the grant of divorce and consequently the petition was allowed and decree for divorce was granted to him against the appellant. 7. Learned Counsel Mr. Anuj Nag, appearing for the appellant/wife, submits that after the settlement had been arrived at by the parties and after they had resolved to live together, the grounds of desertion and cruelty would be treated to have been ignored and the present petition filed within less than two years therefrom, was not maintainable. It is next contended that the learned Court has gone wrong in granting the decree of divorce. The appellant/wife was always willing to live in the company of the respondent/husband and never refused to discharge her matrimonial duties as wife. According to him, the findings recorded by the learned Court against her that she was not willing to live with the husband and deserted him, are wrong. It is further submitted that no act of cruelty has been established on record and it was a case where the husband had forced the wife to live separately and stay away from him. 8. It is further submitted that no act of cruelty has been established on record and it was a case where the husband had forced the wife to live separately and stay away from him. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/husband has adopted the same reasonings as given by the learned Court in the impugned judgment to support her contentions. 9. Concededly, the parties after their marriage hardly lived with each other for about eight months and the wife left the husband. This is again an admitted position that the proceedings were first initiated by the appellant/wife for claiming maintenance as early as on March 24, 1990. An attempt was made to resolve the dispute by an amicable settlement when the proceedings were pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which proceedings had arisen out of the grant of maintenance allowance to the wife. The parties agreed to live together and further agreed to forgive each other and forget their past omissions and commissions. It has come in evidence that the respondent/husband made several attempts after the above said settlement but the wife never went with him. The statements of the parties recorded in the Court are Ext. PW I/A and Ext. PW 1/B and the order passed by the learned Court is Ext. PW 1/C. 10. The learned Court in the impugned judgment has given the details of the visits made by the respondent/husband to bring the appellant/ wife to live with him and every time one excuse or the other was made and ultimately a legal notice was served upon her to join his company. This notice is Ext. PW 1/D on record. The reply sent by the appellant/wife to this notice, which is Ext PW 1/G, makes out an interesting story having denied the allegations made in the notice. It is said that the husband and his parents tortured, mal-treated, gave beatings to the appellant/wife and created such circumstances that she apprehended that it would be unsafe to live with the husband It was said that the husband wanted to eliminate her physically and no efforts were made by him to bring her back as alleged by him in the notice. The blame was put on the husband that he utterly tailed to perform his undertaking given in his statement to the Court on May 25, 1992, Lastly, it was said that she could not be compelled to join the husband. It is in view of this evidence that the matter has to be judged, 11. The appellant/wife has contradicted herself by making inconsistent pleas in the written statement, in her statement before the Court and in the reply to the notice sent by the husband Once the parties had decided to resolve all the disputes between them and further resolved to live together, it was obligatory on the part of the wife to have joined her husband and if thereafter there was any act of misconduct, misbehaviour or cruelty, she was perfectly justified to live away from him and the divorce could not have been granted on the pleas of cruelty and desertion. She completely denied that the husband had made any efforts or made several visits to her or her fattier to persuade her to live with him as agreed upon by the parties in the Court. This evidence has been completely disbelieved by the Court on appreciation of the other material brought on record and it has been found that the husband had been repeatedly visiting her and making requests in sequence of the settlement having been arrived at between them that she should accompany him to her matrimonial home and she never went with him, 12. We have not been able to find out exactly the reasons which compelled the wife to leave her matrimonial home within less than eight months from the marriage, Nothing has been placed on record to establish any act of cruelty, mal-treatment at the hands of the respondent/husband or his parents. This is also not her case that the husband or his parents are greedy persons and were torturing her to bring more dowry or other gifts. In case the appellant/wife was desirous or willing to live with the respondent/husband, there was nothing to stop her. A settlement had already been arrived at and she should have honoured it Her attitude and conduct, as reflected by her on record, lead us to reach an irresistible conclusion that she never desired to live with the respondent/husband and for no reasons. A settlement had already been arrived at and she should have honoured it Her attitude and conduct, as reflected by her on record, lead us to reach an irresistible conclusion that she never desired to live with the respondent/husband and for no reasons. The parties are young and it is really unfortunate to observe that they have not been able to live together and for this purpose the appellant/wife has to blame herself for the conduct which she has projected. 13. Concededly, the parties are living away from each other ever-since July 1989. The narration of events, as said above, leaves no manner of doubt that the appellant/wife has decided not to join her husband and is not prepared to discharge her matrimonial duties. There is, thus, no fun in allowing this stale-mate to continue for all times to come. It is in the interest of the parties that they are separated Since both of them are still young, they would be able to settle down somewhere in life. Respondent/ husband has already suffered enough torture and this long separation, coupled with false insinuations levelled by the wife, does make out a case of cruelty on her part. ‘Cruelty’ as defined in Blacks Law Dictionary means : “The intentional and malicious infliction of physical or mental suffering upon living creatures, particularly human beings ; or, as applied to the latter, the wanton, malicious, and unnecessary infliction of pain upon the body, or the feelings and emotions ; abusive treatment ; inhumanity ; outrage." And, desertion, apart from how it has been defined in Explanation II to section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, means an act by which a person abandons and forsakes, without justification, his life partner in violation of legal and moral obligation. It is earns putting an end to an existing cohabitation where a spouse by his or her act conducts himself or herself in a way that it creates intolerable conditions forcing the other spouse to withdraw from a joint cohabitation, 14. In our considered view, there is no illegality, impropriety or error of judgment in the impugned judgment and decree granted by the learned Court, therefore, the same is hereby affirmed. The appeal is wholly without any merit and consequently ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.