JUDGMENT R.D. Vyas, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.199S in Hindu Marriage Case No. 281/92 by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Indore, who Was pleased to decree the suit for divorce. 2. The case in shorting is that the parties had married on 31st May, 1987; that the appellant was residing with the respondent and out of that wed-lock they have a son born on 26.5.1989. The father of the respondent died on 10.5.1992. It is an admitted position that the parties have not resided together since 2.6.1990. The case of the respondent is that the appellant had gone to her parents three months before the birth of the child, that she had returned to the house of the respondent after about two months of the birth of the child, but she was quarrelling with the respondent; that on 2.6.1990 she went to her parents' house after quarrelling with the respondent. The respondent tried to bring her back on several occasions but she did not return, inspite of the information about the death of the father of the respondent, the appellant did not go to pay last respects to the deceased father of the respondent. It is stated that on 29.6.1992 a notice was issued by the respondent to the appellant through a lawyer, which was replied but according to the respondent the reply was not correct. It is stated that the appellant has alleged that the respondent is greedy of dowry. On these grounds the suit for divorce was filed on two classified grounds-cruelty and dessertion. 3. The reply of the appellant was that she has never behaved improperly with the respondent. She said that she never insisted on the respondent to come to reside at Indore. She admitted that after the birth of the child, she had gone to the matrimonial house. She had gone alongwith customary clothes, ornaments, etc. It is stated that she did not come to Indore on her own but she was forced out of her matrimonial house as the respondent and his family members made it impossible for her to live in the matrimonial house. It is stated that the father of the respondent had called the father of the appellant at Sanwer and he had asked that the father of the appellant should take away the appellant. It is stated that the father of the respondent had called the father of the appellant at Sanwer and he had asked that the father of the appellant should take away the appellant. It was stated that if the mood of the respondent's mother becomes normal she would be called. It is stated that,:. thereafter the appellant went to the house of the respondent but she was not accepted. It is stated that the family members of the respondent wanted dowry and in the greed of dowry they want to marry him again after taking divorce from the appellant. It is stated that at the time of death of the father of the respondent the appellant and her father and other relatives had gone to pay last respects to the deceased but they were insulted out. 4. In these facts the Trial Court proceeded to decide the issues. The Lower Court on evidence held that there was no cruelty on the part of the appellant therefore, the issue regarding cruelty by the appellant was held in favour of the appellant. So far as desertion is concerned, the Lower Court has relied on the stay of the appellant at her matrimonial house from 2.6.1990. 5. Mr. A.P. Polekar, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence of the appellant has not been considered in its proper perspective. He argued that the evidence of the appellant that the respondent was not prepared to keep her if the monies were not paid and was harassing her for the purpose. She stated in para 9 in her deposition that she did not report to the police because she did not want to spoil the matrimonial life. Mr. Polekar argued that para 10 of the deposition of the appellant that she wants to reside with her husband has not been considered by the Lower Court at all. He argued that para 11 of the deposition of the appellant has been misread by the Lower Court. The evidence of the appellant in para 12 wherein she has stated that it is true that after the birth of the child her husband had asked her not to come but still however she went to the matrimonial home is true. According to Mr. The evidence of the appellant in para 12 wherein she has stated that it is true that after the birth of the child her husband had asked her not to come but still however she went to the matrimonial home is true. According to Mr. Polekar this proves that even at that time the respondent did not want her to go back but she had forced herself in the matrimonial home only to suggest that she always was ready and willing to live with the respondent. He argued that para 16 of her deposition has not been considered by the Lower Court properly wherein she had stated that the appellant had gone to pay last respects to her father-in-law but because of the attitude on behalf of the respondent they could not stay longer and had returned back. It is argued that if this argument is considered properly would have belied the say of the respondent that she did not go even to pay last respects to her father-in-law. 6. Mr. Mandhanya, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the lower Court's judgment and decree is proper. He argued that the evidence of the respondent has been rightly believed. He argued that it is admitted fact that from 2.6.1990 the appellant does not reside with the respondent and she has not met him since that day proves that she never wanted to go back to her matrimonial house. 7. From over-all appreciation of the facts, I feel that the Lower Court has erred in not properly appreciating the evidence of the appellant. It is not always necessary that an evidence of a wife gets support, more often the evidence that could come from the matrimonial atmosphere would be leaning towards the husband rather than wife. More often it is impossible for the wife to bring evidence from near the matrimonial house and the spot, she has to rely on her statement and, or on the evidence of some one to whom she may have communicated her words and worries. In such circumstances Mr. More often it is impossible for the wife to bring evidence from near the matrimonial house and the spot, she has to rely on her statement and, or on the evidence of some one to whom she may have communicated her words and worries. In such circumstances Mr. Polekar argues that the Lower Court's findings that simply because the appellant has not examined her father to disprove that the respondent was not permitted in when has came to the matrimoinal house of the appellant or that he also visited alongwith his daughter to the funeral procession or to pay respects to the departed soul, the approach of the Lower Court does no) seem to be proper in appreciating the evidence. 8. Looking to the deposition of the appellant in paras 8, 9, 11, 12, I feel the Lower Court has totally failed to take into consideration the facts cited by her in its proper perspective. The approach of the learned Judge is hyper-technical and deserves to be set aside. I accept the evidence of the appellant in her say that she never wanted to leave the matrimonial home but was always ready and willing to perform her part of the matrimonial duties, therefore, there is no animus deserendi on the part of the appellant on the contrary it seems she has always shown her willingness to return to the matrimonial house if the atmosphere is made congenial. Today in the open Court I had asked about the doubts but the wife is still ready and willing to go to the matrimonial house, husband's denial was almost in contemptuous "No". This also inclines me to hold that it was the husband who did not want the wife rather than the wife had desserted him. In that view of the matter, the decree on the ground of dessertion deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fees as per schedule.