JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal impugns the decree and judgment dated February 28, 1994 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 1955 Act) was allowed and the decree of divorce was passed in favour of the respondent husband. 2. The appellant wife and the respondent husband shall be referred hereinafter as the 'wife' and the husband. 3. Contextual facts depict that the husband instituted a petition seeking divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion in the Family Court, Ajmer. It was averred in the petition that after the marriage which had taken place on May 9, 1983, the wife lived with the husband only for four and half months and during that period also she visited her father's house at Ratlam (M.P.) twice. When she again expressed her wish to visit her father's place the husband made an attempt to prevent her but after assuring the husband that she would come back in two weeks she left Ajmer for Ratlam. To the utter surprise of the husband she took admission in the M.A. Final Classes at Ratlam and did not come back. After much efforts the wife came to Ajmer on April 5, 1986 but went back to Ratlam on May 29, 1986. As required by the wife the husband constructed two separate rooms at Ajmer but despite this the wife did not come back to live with the husband. When all efforts were failed the husband along with his brother Chandra Prakash and brother-in-law Ram Babu Sharma went to Ratlam to take her back but she declined to accompany him. After serving her notice through registered post the husband instituted the petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act. 4. The wife submitted written statement denying the allegations averred in the petition. It was pleaded by her that at the time of her marriage she was studying and her study was incomplete. As she had been a brilliant student throughout she wanted to continue the study but her in-laws were against this. The wife denied this fact that her husband even came to Ratlam to bring her back. The husband started misbehaving with her from the very beginning. As she had been a brilliant student throughout she wanted to continue the study but her in-laws were against this. The wife denied this fact that her husband even came to Ratlam to bring her back. The husband started misbehaving with her from the very beginning. When she gave birth to a daughter at Ajmer, she was not properly cared and as her father could not fulfil the husband's greed of dowry she was deliberately left at her father house. The wife denied to have received any notice. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as three issues were framed by the learned Family Court. The husband examined as many as five witnesses and the wife also produced same number of witnesses. The learned Family Court after hearing the final submission allowed the petition of the husband deciding the issue relating to desertion in favour of the husband. 5. We have heard Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the wife and perused the record. 6. The relevant statutory provi-sions may first be set out. Reading only the portion that is material, Section 13(1)(ib) of 1955 Act enacts: "13(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or" This Sub-section is followed by an Explanation which runs: "Explanation In this sub-section, the expression 'desertion' means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly." 7. The question as to what pre-cisely constitutes 'desertion' came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lachman v. Meena, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 40. Citing the summary of the law in Halsbury's Laws of England (Third Edition, Vol. The question as to what pre-cisely constitutes 'desertion' came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lachman v. Meena, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 40. Citing the summary of the law in Halsbury's Laws of England (Third Edition, Vol. 12) and following the elaborate consideration of the several English decisions in which the question of the ingredients of desertion were considered, their Lordships of the Supreme Court after incorporating the ratio of Bipin Chandra v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 176, propounded thus "In its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without the other's consent, and without reasonable cause. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage." It was further observed that the petitioner (he or she) has to establish beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court, the desertion throughout the entire period of two years before the petition as well as that such desertion was without just cause. In other words, even if the wife, where she is the deserting spouse, does not prove just cause for her living apart, the petitioner-husband has still to satisfy the Court that the desertion was without just cause. 8. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we have to examine as to whether in the instant case the husband has legally discharged the burden to establish by convincing evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the wife abandoned him without reasonable cause and the desertion was through-out the statutory period of two years and there was no bona fide attempt on the wife's part to return to the matrimonial home and the husband did not prevent her by his conduct from cohabitation. 9. The husband instituted petition in the Family Court on September 26, 1989. In para 3 he pleaded that the wife remained with him till May 29, 1986 and thereafter went to her father's house at Ratlam. In para 7 the husband though averred that the wife gave birth to a daughter Kamni yet the date and place of her birth has not been mentioned. In para 8 it has been stated that he served a notice through his Advocate on August 7, 1987 by registered post but its acknowledgement receipt was not received back and a prayer to draw presumption of service on wife has been made. In para 8 it has been stated that he served a notice through his Advocate on August 7, 1987 by registered post but its acknowledgement receipt was not received back and a prayer to draw presumption of service on wife has been made. In para 9 it has been pleaded that the husband had gone to Ratlam on September 20, 1989 and made a last attempt to bring her back but she misbehaved with him and asked to dissolve the marriage. 10. In the written statement the wife stated that soon after her marriage the husband and her in-laws started making demand of dowry. As she and her father could not fulfil their demand, they began torturing her. She wanted to continue her studies in order to seek a good job but the husband and her in-laws were against it. She was forced to live with her father at Ratlam and the husband never visited Ratlam and made no attempt for her happy and peaceful wedded life. After completion of her examination she herself had gone to Ajmer to reside with husband. In para 6 of the written statement she specifically stated that the wife of her husband's elder brother had died of burns in the abnormal circumstances, therefore, she also had apprehension of such maltreatment from her in-laws who created such atmosphere that she had no option but to reside at her father's house along with her minor daughter since January 7, 1988. In para 8 she pleaded that she did not receive any notice from the husband. In further paras of the written statement she averred that she never misbehaved with the husband or asked him to dissolve the marriage. According to her no cause of action arose to the husband and the petition was premature. 11. On a close scrutiny of the evidence it is revealed that the husband Suresh Kumar (AW 1) did not deny this fact that the wife was residing with her father since January 7, 1988. He did not give the dates of his journey undertook by him from Ajmer to Ratlam. Whereas the wife Kamla (NAW 1) in her deposition gave minute details of each incident. She stated that on September 9, 1985 she gave birth to a daughter at Ratlam where she was sent by the husband for delivery. He did not give the dates of his journey undertook by him from Ajmer to Ratlam. Whereas the wife Kamla (NAW 1) in her deposition gave minute details of each incident. She stated that on September 9, 1985 she gave birth to a daughter at Ratlam where she was sent by the husband for delivery. When she came to Ajmer with the daughter the ornaments of her daughter were kept by her mother-in-law. During Diwali vacations her daughter became seriously ill and was admitted to Railway Hospital for a period of eight days but the husband and in-laws left her and her daughter alone in the Hospital and did not render any help. She also deposed that when she proceeded to leave Ajmer for Ratlam on January 7, 1988 she was forced to write a document to release her husband. An attempt was also made to snatch her daughter from her. Looking to the fact Sita the wife of husband's eldest brother was burnt to death by her in-laws, she immediately wanted to leave the house. The husband followed her and misbehaved with her at the Railway Station. In her cross-examination also she again laid stress and deposed that since January 7, 1988 she was residing with her father. Her testimony on this fact could not be shattered by the husband. 12. We have also perused the statements of the witnesses Smt. Kiran (AW 2), Ram Babu Sharma (AW 3), Suresh Chand Mishra (AW 4) and Chandra Prakash (AW 5) produced by the husband but we find that the version of the wife that she left her husband's house on January 7, 1988 could not be rebutted. Thus we hold that the wife had left the house of her husband on January 7, 1988 and since then she was residing with her father at Ratlam. Undeniably the petition was filed by the husband on September 26, 1989 i.e. before expiration of two years since the wife left his house. We are satisfied that the husband has not legally established beyond reasonable doubt that the wife abandoned him without reasonable cause and the desertion was throughout the statutory period of two years. Learned Court below did not examine the evidence of the parties meticulously in arriving at the impugned findings. 13. We are satisfied that the husband has not legally established beyond reasonable doubt that the wife abandoned him without reasonable cause and the desertion was throughout the statutory period of two years. Learned Court below did not examine the evidence of the parties meticulously in arriving at the impugned findings. 13. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned decree and judgment dated February 28, 1994 passed by the Family Court, Ajmer with costs.Appeal allowed. *******