Judgment D.N.Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is arising out of judgment and order passed by the then learned Additional District Judge, 5th, Dhanbad in Title (Mat.) Suit No. 4 of 1986, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below decreed the suit and passed the order of dissolution of marriage. 2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal that the plaintiff/respondent is an employee of Railway working as Cleaner and posted at Dhanbad and he had married with the appellant, Smt. Rita Dey on 26-4-1982 according to the Hindu rites and customs and after marriage the respondent/plaintiff brought the wife-appellant at his residence and they started living as husband and wife. Some time in July 1982 during the pregnancy period the brother of the appellant came along with his friends and sought for Bidai and accordingly the respondent sent the appellant to her fathers place and thereafter she has been residing there. A female child was born on 23-1-1983. The respondent/plaintiff used to visit the house of the appellant and to see his daughter and also tried to bring the appellant several times but the appellant and her brothers did not allow her to go back to her Sasural. They were trying to persuade the respondent to stay at the appellants house as Ghar Jamai leaving his own parents which was not acceptable to the respondent/plaintiff. On 5-8-1983, the plaintiff/respondent went to the house of appellant to take her and daughter to his own house but she refused to come back. It is further claimed that while the appellant with his daughter in lap taking them from her parents house, the father-in-law of the plaintiff and others forcibly restrained the plaintiff/respondent from taking the appellant and then the plaintiff proceeded, as a result of which he was assaulted. After some time on the same way, the brother-in-law of the plaintiff namely Badal Paul along with some others came and abused the plaintiff-respondent and his parents. On 10-8-1983 at the intervention of the local police the daughter was given to the appellant. The plaintiff also filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on 6-8-1983 and the plaintiff requested to save him from the high handedness of his father-in-law and others. The appellant also filed a case under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance and the said case is still pending for final order. The plaintiff also filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on 6-8-1983 and the plaintiff requested to save him from the high handedness of his father-in-law and others. The appellant also filed a case under Sec. 125 Cr. P.C. for maintenance and the said case is still pending for final order. The plaintiff-respondent was all along ready and willing to keep the respondent back to his house but the appellant has declined to stay and live with the plaintiff/respondent and the appellant has voluntarily deserted the plaintiff for more than two years and she has finally declined to stay and live with the plaintiff as a result of which the suit for divorce was filed. 3. The wife/appellant also filed written statement claiming therein that during marriage the mother and brother of the appellant had to give huge dowry to the plaintiff/respondent but even then the plaintiff is insisting for dowry. It is further claimed that the appellants mother and elder brother were compelled to bare the expenses not only the clothes but even day to day expenses. It is further alleged that the appellant was often assaulted by the plaintiff and there was a demand of a sum of Rs. 7,000.00 by way of further loan by the plaintiff for further construction of the residential house and due to which the appellant was subjected to torture and due to conduct and behaviour of the plaintiff and his family members forced the appellant to leave her matrimonial house along with her elder brother on 13-7-1982. The plaintiff and his parents avoided to take the appellant to her matrimonial home as well as the plaintiff and his parents did not spend a single farthing towards the maintenance of the baby child. The plaintiff never went to the house of appellant to bring back her and her daughter. On 5-8-1983 at about 9 a.m. the plaintiff, all of a sudden came to the parents house of the appellant and forcibly snatched and took away the child from the lap of appellant despite serious protest. The plaintiff along with his associates gave out violent threats to assault the appellant and her family members for which the elder brother of the appellant and also initiated a proceeding under Sec. 107, Cr. The plaintiff along with his associates gave out violent threats to assault the appellant and her family members for which the elder brother of the appellant and also initiated a proceeding under Sec. 107, Cr. P.C. against the plaintiff and the plaintiff has never been willing to take back the appellant and her child to his house and the allegation of desertion on the part of the appellant is false and not correct and as such the suit is fit to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, the learned Court below framed issues as follows: (I) Is the suit maintainable in its present form ? (II) Whether the wife, as alleged in plaint, deserted the plaintiff-husband or whether she has been forced to leave her matrimonial house with an intention to leave her forever or permanently as asserted by the wife ? (III) To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to ? 5. Both parties adduced evidence in the lower Court and after considering the evidence on record the learned Court below decreed the suit and passed the order of divorce by the impugned judgment. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/wife submitted that the learned Court below has committed error in decreeing the suit without going through and appreciating the evidence on record correctly. It is further argued that there was no desertion from the side of the appellant/wife rather the husband, the plaintiff never tried to take her back to her Sasural. It is also submitted that the learned Court below did not consider the real fact that the husband/respondent gave out threat to do away with her life if she went to reside with him and there as also a proceeding under Sec. 107, Cr. P.C. started. It is further argued that the appellant-wife was also subjected to torture and assault even by her husband and other family members during her stay at Sasural. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also relied upon the cases -- and -- . 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent at the very outset: submitted that the husband /plaintiff is already dead, though the father, mother and others have already been substituted in his place in the instant case. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also relied upon the cases -- and -- . 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent at the very outset: submitted that the husband /plaintiff is already dead, though the father, mother and others have already been substituted in his place in the instant case. It is further argued that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment as the appellant-wife is herself responsible for the whole episode as she flatly denied to come back to her Sasural and live with the plaintiff. It is further argued that virtually the appellant already deserted her husband (now dead) for more than two years, though her husband, the plaintiff tried his best to bring her back to the matrimonial house for leading conjugal life but even then the appellant did not agree to come back to the matrimonial house. It is further submitted that due to stiff attitude on the part of the father and brother of the appellant which will also be evident from the criminal cases, even a proceeding under Sec. 107, Cr. P.C., there is a strained relations and it was created only by the appellant because of her behaviour and conduct and the respondent, her husband was always ready to keep her peacefully and gracefully in the matrimonial house and as such the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 8. Before appreciating the contention of both the parties, it is appropriate to look into the evidence on the record. It is an admitted position that marriage took place on 26-4-1982. It is also an admitted position that the appellant came to her parents house in the month of July 1982 along with her elder brother when she was admittedly pregnant and a female child was born on 23-1-1983. There is no dispute in respect of a proceeding started between the parties under Section 107, Cr. P.C. which was initiated by the elder brother of the appellant being M.P. Case No. 1006 of 1983. There is also no denial to the fact that the appellant had filed a maintenance case under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which is pending. 9. P.C. which was initiated by the elder brother of the appellant being M.P. Case No. 1006 of 1983. There is also no denial to the fact that the appellant had filed a maintenance case under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C. in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, which is pending. 9. P.W. 1, the plaintiff/respondent stated that the elder brother of the appellant namely Badal Paul took away his wife on biddai because of the fact that she was pregnant at the relevant time. He further claimed that he used to visit Sasural often and he also used to pay the expenditure. He further stated that he had gone to his Sasural for taking back his wife and daughter on the occasion of annaprasan on 5-8-1983 but she refused to come back and the in-laws family had told him to stay at Sasural as Ghar Jamai because his father is already doing service. He had also filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in the Desertion Cell but the appellant, his wife was not ready to come back to the matrimonial house. He also deposed that for the last three years, his wife has not been residing with him. 10. The appellant, wife stated that she was pregnant in July 1982 and a female child was born on 23-1-83 in her parents house. She claimed that she was assaulted by her husband on 13-7-1983 but admittedly no any cogent evidence coming forward to substantiate this story. No reason was assigned as to why such incident could not be reported to either police or any other officials. Moreover, admittedly, the appellant-wife was staying at her parents house on 13-7-1983 and so such story of assault at her parents house by the respondent does not appear to be convincing. She flatly deposed in her cross-examination in para-40 that she has got no faith on her husband as she may be killed, But her reply for coming to her Sasural is evasive. She is also not definite in her evidence that she is ready to stay at her Sasural with her husband. 11. Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is as follows: 13. She is also not definite in her evidence that she is ready to stay at her Sasural with her husband. 11. Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is as follows: 13. Divorce.- (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband of the wife, be divorced by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party- (i) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse ; or (i-a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty ; or (i-b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition ; or (ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion ; or (iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. 12. In the instant case, the main ground for dissolution of marriage as propounded by the respondent for desertion by the appellant for continuous period of not less than two years. Desertion within the meaning of provision of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not imply only a separate residence and separate living. It is also necessary that there must be a determination to put an end to the marital relation and to put an end to cohabitation permanently. It is also well settled that without animus deserendi there can be no dissolution. It is worth to mention at this stage that undoubtedly the appellant had left the matrimonial home in the month of July 1982 when she was carrying pregnancy and the suit was filed on 17-1-1986, when admittedly the appellant never visited her marital house. 13. I have already discussed above that the appellant has been examined in the lower Court and her reply is also evasive on the point of coming back to the matrimonial home. It is also evident that the appellant-wife had filed a maintenance case against the respondent-husband with an intention to get the maintenance under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C. It is further apparent from the record itself that a proceeding under Sec. 107, Cr. It is also evident that the appellant-wife had filed a maintenance case against the respondent-husband with an intention to get the maintenance under Sec. 125, Cr. P.C. It is further apparent from the record itself that a proceeding under Sec. 107, Cr. P.C. was also initiated at the instance of the elder brother of the appellant against the husband-respondent, which showed the intention of the appellant-wife not to go back to her matrimonial house. 14. I may mention here at this stage that the husband Chandan Kumar Dey died during the pendency of the appeal and there is every chance that he must have been suffering from anxiety and depression due to such conduct and behaviour of the appellant. It is not known whether the appellant visited the matrimonial house at the time of death of her husband or not, as none of the learned Counsel pointed out anything on this score, but it is clear from the evidence on record that there was a fully determination on the part of the appellant to put an end to the marital relation and also to put an end to cohabitation permanently. 15. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, argued that the respondents are ready to give due share to the daughter of Chandan Kumar Dey. However, there is no impediment, in my view, for the daughter of Chandan Kumar Dey to have her own due share, in accordance with law, for which she will be entitled to. 16. Considering the whole facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the case of desertion has fully been established in the instant case and I find that learned Court below has rightly decreed the suit dissolving the marriage of Chandan and Rita. 17. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 18. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.