Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 11.12.1992 rendered by District Judge, Karnal dismissing a petition for divorce filed by him on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 2. Marriage between the parties took place on 22.11.1983. A female child was born out of the wedlock. Petition giving rise to this appeal was filed on 24.5.1990 alleging, inter alia, that the respondent-wife was abusive and quarrelsome lady and had been insulting and humiliating the husband and other members of his family and was also in the habit of making physical assaults on the mother of the appellant, she failed to discharge the matrimonial obligations and wanted to live separately from other members of the family. It was further alleged that she left the matrimonial home without any reason and did not return in spite of the efforts of the appellant. The husband arranged separate accommodation and brought the wife there but she again left the matrimonial home. Petition was contested by the respondent-wife. It was stated that she had always been ready and willing to live with the appellant provided she was given proper respect and treatment by the appellant and the members of his family. It was further stated that it was the appellant and the members of his family who subjected her to cruel treatment as they were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. She denied that any separate accommodation was arranged for her and she was taken to village Uncha Samana. 3. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence found no substance in the plea of the appellant and dismissed the petition for divorce. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal has been preferred. 4. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat observed that the respondent was not interested in compromise. The matter was, therefore, sent back to this Court for decision on merits. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. Relying upon the decisions in Mr. Suresh Bala v. Major Gurmohinder S. Bala, AIR 1983 Delhi 230; Rajkishore Prasad v. Smt. Raj Kumari Devi and Ors., AIR 1986 Patna 362; Smt. Aruna Jalan v. Capt. (now Major) Ramesh Chand Jalan, II (1988) DMC 177=AIR 1988 Allahabad 239, and Smt. Gurdip Kaur v. Balbir Singh, I (1991) DMC 571=1990 (2) CLJ (C. Cr. Suresh Bala v. Major Gurmohinder S. Bala, AIR 1983 Delhi 230; Rajkishore Prasad v. Smt. Raj Kumari Devi and Ors., AIR 1986 Patna 362; Smt. Aruna Jalan v. Capt. (now Major) Ramesh Chand Jalan, II (1988) DMC 177=AIR 1988 Allahabad 239, and Smt. Gurdip Kaur v. Balbir Singh, I (1991) DMC 571=1990 (2) CLJ (C. Cr. and Rev.) 217, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the view of the Trial Court is erroneous. 6. I find no substance in the contention of the Counsel for the appellant. I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the Trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the husband has not been able to prove cruelty on the part of the wife nor has been able to prove desertion. Stand of the husband is contradictory. On the one hand he alleges that the conduct of the wife was not conducive to him and his family, on the other hand he has stated that he was making efforts to bring her back. Nothing is shown as to why the wife was not willing to live with the husband. Burden of proof was on the husband. The wife has categorically stated that she has been and is willing to live with the husband and had to live separately under force of circumstances created by the husband. There is no dispute with the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments cited by the Counsel for the appellant that if the wife was living away without any reasonable excuse, animus deserendi could be inferred. Having regard to the facts of this case, I am unable to infer animus deserendi on the part of the wife. The decisions cited by the Counsel, therefore, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.