JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - Appellant-husband has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of his divorce petition by the trial court. 2. Marrige between the parties took place on 2.5.1977 and two sons aged 12 years and 10 years (in the year 1990) were born out of this wedlock. The husband filed divorce petition in June, 1990 alleging, inter alia, that the wife had no interest in household affairs, quite oftenly, the husband found the respondent-wife missing from the house, meeting her friends and roaming in the market, the wife used to abuse the sister and brother of the husband and also attacked the husband, she was also joined by her mother and brother in abusing the husband and his relatives, the wife left matrimonial home and failed to join in spite of several efforts made by the husband, there was a demand of money by the brother of the wife. The wife did not put in appearance in the trial court despite notice. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the divorce petition holding that the allegations of cruelty could not be pressed into service as the husband lived with the wife after the so-called incidents from which cruelty was sought to be inferred. It was further held that statutory period of desertion was not over. 3. This appeal was filed in the year 1990 and the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat recorded that in spite of best efforts, counsel for the appellant was not able to secure the presence of the appellant. The matter was, therefore, sent to this Court for disposal on merits. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. Counsel submitted that the appellant has not contacted him after the filing of the appeal, which as noticed above, was filed in the year 1990. He further submitted that it is not known as to what has happened in the last eleven years. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the wife. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the trial Court that the allegations of cruelty levelled by the husband cannot be held to be proved nor was the ground of desertion proved by the appellant-husband and, therefore, the husband was not entitled to divorced. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I find no reason to interfere with the view taken by the trial Court that the allegations of cruelty levelled by the husband cannot be held to be proved nor was the ground of desertion proved by the appellant-husband and, therefore, the husband was not entitled to divorced. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.