JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:---This appeal arises out of the judgment given in Petition No. A-1685 of 1993 of the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The Ld. Judge by his judgment and order dated 2nd May, 1997 has disbelieved the case of the cruelty putforth by the petitioner-husband but has accepted the case of desertion on the part of the respondent-wife and, therefore, the wife has challenged the decree of divorce. 2. The facts are very narrow compass. The appellant and the respondent got married with each other on 20th May, 1990 and they had hardly stayed together. They had separated on 24th May, 1999. 3. The fact of having left the matrimonial home by the wife is admitted. The question is whether the desertion continued till the filing of the petition which happened on 8th October, 1993. 4. Soon after her leaving the matrimonial home, on 27th May, 1991, the respondent-husband had got a Advocate's letter issued on the appellant-wife which she initially denied to have received but eventually she admitted the same in her cross-examination at page 78. 5. However, she did reply to it by letter dated 14th June, 1991 which she herself produced on record. 6. Before filing of the petition, another notice was issued at the instance of the respondent/husband on 28th July, 1993 which puts into motion the letters from the wife as well as her personal meeting with the husband at his Advocate's office. With regard to this meeting, a letter was written by her addressing to the Advocate of the husband on 13th September, 1993. 7. The letter of 10th August, 1993 requesting a month's time to comply with the notice of 27th May, 1993 and subsequent meeting described in the letter dated 13th September, 1993 are very crucial. 8. A notice dated 27th July, 1993 was issued calling upon her to resume cohabitation within seven days. In response to the said letter dated 27th July, 1993, she requested a month's time in her letter dated 10th August, 1993. A letter addressed to the Advocate of the husband dated 13th September, 1993 depicted her willingness to come back but lack of response on the part of the husband is graphically described. 9. These documents were produced along with the list Exhibit 14 below to which there is an endorsement to the effect that these letters are admitted. A letter addressed to the Advocate of the husband dated 13th September, 1993 depicted her willingness to come back but lack of response on the part of the husband is graphically described. 9. These documents were produced along with the list Exhibit 14 below to which there is an endorsement to the effect that these letters are admitted. There is no objection on the part of the husband. The endorsement bears signature of the husband in the margin of this Exhibit 14. There is an order passed by the trial Court that admitted documents be exhibited. Somehow or the other, the trial Court till the end of proceedings upto the judgment, had in fact not exhibited these documents and, therefore, they are not reflected anywhere in the judgment placed before us. 10. The impugned judgment and order obviously is not in fact keeping with the record of the case when the documents which are not reflected and not considered in the judgment they are found to be directly referring to the question in hand viz. whether the desertion continues till the date of filing of the petition. It becomes clear that once these documents are taken into consideration, on the date of filing of the petition, there was no desertion. She was willing to cohabit. 11. The entire judgment was gone through and the Ld. Advocate for the respondent/husband was at pains to read into it at least by way of inference, and effect having been given to those documents, in our opinion, his efforts are not of vain because those documents were not before the learned trial Judge as for him they were not exhibited though they were admitted and were ordered to be exhibited by the learned trial Judge. 12. The result is, therefore, that while giving reasons in the judgment the learned trial Judge could not take into consideration those documents as though they were ordered to be exhibited, they were not exhibited. This being the position, we have taken those documents into consideration. Once they are taken into consideration, obviously, the desertion cannot be said to be continued till the date of filing of the petition. 13. The ground of cruelty is disbelieved by the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid documents, the ground of desertion also cannot be said to be proved. That ground is not available in respect of those documents. 14. 13. The ground of cruelty is disbelieved by the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid documents, the ground of desertion also cannot be said to be proved. That ground is not available in respect of those documents. 14. Before passing the final order, to keep the record in order, we direct the trial Court by this order that it shall exhibit those documents and shall give exhibit numbers to those documents which were already admitted and ordered to be exhibited by the trial Court and the numbers so given shall be prior to the date of the judgment, and in order to avoid confusion, the exhibit numbers immediately preceding the judgment shall be taken for the purpose and English letters in alphabetical (viz. A, B, C, D..... etc.), as the case may be, shall be sufficient in respect of each documents and shown as such duly exhibited in their Roznama. 15. So far as the appeal is concerned, it succeeds. The judgment and order dated 2nd May, 1997 passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside. 16. Under the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. 17. Certified copy be expedited. Appeal allowed. -----