Judgment BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant husband feeling aggrieved against the rejection of his divorce petition. ( 2 ) CASE of the appellant in the divorce petition was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized when they were minor. The respondent wife had come to the place of the appellant only for 2-3 days and then it was decided that it will be after the parties get major that ceremony of gona will be performed. It was also the case of the appellant that marriage has not been consummated between the parties. The appellant stated that when the parties became major, the appellant went to bring the respondent-wife to matrimonial home but he was refused. The appellant went again after 15 days but he was refused the company of the respondent even to the extent that the respondent refused the company of the appellant saying that she does not even remember that marriage was ever solemnized between the parties, now she has become major and she will decide about her future and she does not accept the marriage as allegedly solemnized. ( 3 ) THE appellant also asserted that in the month of Feb. , 1988 a notice was sent to the respondent to carry out her conjugal obligations. Yet another notice was sent to her in May, 1988. Both these notices are Ex. 1 and Ex. 4 on record respectively. These notices were received back by the appellant unserved. The case of the appellant in this regard was that the respondent has deliberately avoided receipt of those notices as she had no faith in the institution of marriage. The manner in which notices have been returned show that she was not even prepared to accept a communication from the appellant without any justifiable reason and this shows that the respondent wants to avoid the appellants and there is a predominant element of animus deserendi on the face of record. ( 4 ) IT was also the case of the appellant that the marriage being solemnized at the age when the parties were not conscious of their obligations, they are living separately for almost 16 years and gona ceremony having not been performed; the factum of separately for almost 16 years and proportions. The marriage has irretrievably broken down. ( 4 ) IT was also the case of the appellant that the marriage being solemnized at the age when the parties were not conscious of their obligations, they are living separately for almost 16 years and gona ceremony having not been performed; the factum of separately for almost 16 years and proportions. The marriage has irretrievably broken down. The bold face of the respondent-wife in saying that she is prepared to join the matrimonial home is a mask face as she herself has denied that she has any faith towards marriage between the parties and refused to come to the appellant-husband. The appellant has alleged that the trial Court was wrong in holding that the appellant has] not been able to establish his attempts to get the respondent back to matrimonial home. He wants to allege that the respondent has deserted the appellant and had no intention of resuming the cohabitation and therefore, she never wanted to live with the appellant. This further stand was that by having levelled vague allegations regarding dowry etc. fallacious circumstances have been created to deny the appellant his right of resuming the matrimony. He want to say that the respondent has refused consent to join him and her conduct has been un-reasonable. From these facts, he wants to derive the factum of separation having been proved for 16 years and elements of animus deserendi having been established against the respondent somuch so that attempts of the appellant with jatiya panchayat were not given any credence. ( 5 ) THE appellant has also stated that the delay in filing the divorce proceedings cannot be given any weightage because there has been a persistent attempt on the part of the appellant to get back the wife. She has been avoiding the husband and proof of avoidance can be seen in the denial to receive even the registered letters. In this fashion the appellant claimed that the marriage having been irretrievably broken, the marriage should be dissolved and the parties should be left to have their options open. ( 6 ) CONTROVERTING the allegations of the appellant-husband, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has stressed that the burden of proving desertion and animus deserendi was on the appellant-petitioner. The matrimonial life survived for more than 10 years and then the appellant thought of filing the divorce petition. ( 6 ) CONTROVERTING the allegations of the appellant-husband, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has stressed that the burden of proving desertion and animus deserendi was on the appellant-petitioner. The matrimonial life survived for more than 10 years and then the appellant thought of filing the divorce petition. This reflects that it is not a case where the appellants conduct can be considered reasonable and that the delay is fatal. During the intervening period the appellant-husband has been visiting the respondent-wife and they have been living as husband and wife. It is incorrect to state that the marriage was not consummated. The appellant has been visiting the respondent during vacations. She had been visited by the appellant. Whenever she wanted the appellant to take her back to the matrimonial home he has been avoiding her on the pretext that he has not so far finished his studies and when studies were complete he would take her home. ( 7 ) FURTHER case of the respondent is that the inlaws were not happy with the marriage because the dowry was insufficient. She was denied that she has ever said that she is not happy with the marriage. All this was only a provocation because the appellant has not been able to prevail over his parents and they are forcing him to get into a second marriage. ( 8 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As regard the marriage being solemnized when the parties were minors, suffice it to say that the parties have not seriously contested this point as none of them have produced any such document of age on record which would bring to conclusion as to the correct age of the parties at the time of marriage. However, learned trial Court has proceeded to decide the issue on the common stand of the parties that after the marriage the parties regarded each other as husband and wife and did not renounce the marriage. Once this finding is arrived at by the trial Court and is not refuted by the appellant, then the question of minority at the time of marriage loses relevance. Once this finding is arrived at by the trial Court and is not refuted by the appellant, then the question of minority at the time of marriage loses relevance. ( 9 ) THIS has been alleged by the appellant in his written arguments that the marriage has not been consummated at all and the respondent has failed to establish any cogent and convincing evidence as to whether she has made any attempt to consummate the marriage and to live with the husband but this stand of the appellant is not convincing. The evidence of the respondent in this regard is trust-worthy. This inference is more fortified from the conclusions drawn by the trial Court on issue No. 1. It appears that because the marriage was not sought to be dissolved and repudiated on the ground of minority it was being sought to be annulled on the ground of desertion, as contained in S. 13 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 12 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act has not been invoked as a ground for dissolution of marriage. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 1 are confirmed. ( 10 ) THE appellant has tried to magnify the separation to the extent he could. On the basis of notices Ex. 1 and Ex. 4 the appellant has tried to suggest that the respondent has not even been receiving his communications and such receipt was refused on un-convincing grounds. This being the position the respondent has closed all her doors to the appellant including his communications. However, this has been refuted by the respondent. The separation was on account of continuity of studies by the appellant. He had no courage to over-come the wishes of his family. He wanted to stand on his own legs and that being the position he kept on visiting the wife and refused to take her to the matrimonial home. Even in the Court proceedings when this was recorded that the respondent was prepared to go to her husband, the appellant was not prepared to take her. This attitude of the appellant was sufficient to suggest the in-built weakness which the appellant has in his conduct. Even in the Court proceedings when this was recorded that the respondent was prepared to go to her husband, the appellant was not prepared to take her. This attitude of the appellant was sufficient to suggest the in-built weakness which the appellant has in his conduct. May be that the appellant had presumed that by living for a longer period animus deserendi can be thrushed upon the respondent and he waited for the institution of divorce petition after a long period but that by itself is not sufficient to establish a case of desertion and enable the Court to draw an inference as suggested by the appellant that since the marriage had irretrievably broken down it should be permitted to construe that the marriage has been dissolved. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on a Supreme Court decision in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710 wherein this has been clearly observed that irretrievably broken marriage is not a ground by itself but it can be borne in mind from the evidence on record on being properly scrutinized, to see whether the ground (s) as alleged are made out. ( 11 ) IN the instant case a desertion which was permitted by the appellant himself is sought to be relied upon by the appellant to establish an animus deserendi against the respondent-wife. In the background that the appellant has been stubbornly refusing the respondent-wife to get into his company this cannot be permitted to come into reckoning. The animus deserendi has to be in the doings of the wife herself and not on the basis of situations created by the husband. In this regard the proceedings which have taken place before jatiya panchayat have also been brought on record of this Court in which the writings recorded on 13th Nov. , 1989 are of significant character. Therein, both the parties have shown their desire to live together and have scribed documents. If after nine years of marriage these feelings can be expressed then irretrievable nature of break-down of marriage as canvassed by the appellant cannot be seen as to be the last word. The findings as arrived at by the learned trial Court, thus, are not considered unjust or in-appropriate in any way. There is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.