( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') has been preferred by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 13-12-2001, passed by Additional District Judge Burhanpur, in c. S. No. 49-A/98, whereby his application under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage has been rejected. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized at village Chahardi, Distt. Jalgaon (Maharashtra) on 7th of May, 1994. ( 3 ) THE case of the appellant briefly narrated is that only 3 or 4 days after the marriage on the pretext of illness, the respondent deprived the appellant of the pleasures of marital life and informed him that she wanted to marry a teacher of village chahardi but her parents married her with him against her wishes and only a few days after the marriage she started insisting for giving her maintenance and also for divorce. The appellant called the father of the respondent and apprised him about this fact. The father of the respondent advised her not to behave in such a manner. Thereafter, on persuasion of her father the respondent agreed to live with the appellant. She lived with the appellant at Pithampur, Nepanagar and Khalghat where he was in employment. The respondent always persuaded the appellant to accept Mahanubhav Panth. While she was living at Pitampur along with the appellant, the respondent in accordance with the belief of mahanubhav panth helped one Solanki in developing love and physical relations with a girl. When the appellant protested against this conduct of the respondent, she gave him a threat that she will commit suicide by pouring kerosene. ( 4 ) AT Khalghat also her behaviour with the appellant was cruel. The husband also averred that after some time appellant got employment in Railways at Bhusawal. Appellant used to come every day from nepanagar to Bhusawal. During this period, respondent was left with his parents. She used to misbehave with his parents. After some time, the respondent went to her village chahardi where she tried to accept mahanubhav Panth but she was told that without divorce she cannot adopt that panth, hence she decided to get divorce and returned from her parental home and continued to treat the appellant with cruelty. She used to misbehave with his parents. After some time, the respondent went to her village chahardi where she tried to accept mahanubhav Panth but she was told that without divorce she cannot adopt that panth, hence she decided to get divorce and returned from her parental home and continued to treat the appellant with cruelty. ( 5 ) THE appellant also alleged that on 31-8-1996 the respondent left her marital home with a determination of not coming back. Appellant went to the parental home of the respondent and persuaded her to come back to her marital home but she did not accede to his request. Appellant served her with a notice calling upon her to come back to her marital home but she did not pay any heed to it. ( 6 ) THE appellant filed the present petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. ( 7 ) THE case of the wife is that after the marriage, she was always prepared to live with her husband. She never desired to divorce the appellant for adopting Mahanubhav Panth. She has pleaded that the charge of cruelty leveled against her by her husband, is totally false. She had always been willing to live with her husband and is still willing to live with him. She has never treated her husband or his parents with cruelty nor has she deserted her husband. ( 8 ) THE trial Court after recording the evidence of both the sides held that the wife did not treat with her husband with cruelty and she has not deserted him. On these findings, the petition of the appellant was dismissed. ( 9 ) I have heard Ku. Sunita Chaurasiya, counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. ( 10 ) BEFORE the trial Court, the appellant was examined himself, and his brother-in-law Rajendra (P. W. 2) and father Sonu (P. W. 3 ). ( 11 ) THE appellant has stated that after his marriage, the respondent informed him that she wanted to marry a teacher of village charhadi but her parents performed her marriage against her will. She used to persuade him to accept Mahanubhav Panth and when he refused to accept this Panth, she insisted for divorce. The witness has also stated that the behaviour of the respondent with his parents was cruel. She used to persuade him to accept Mahanubhav Panth and when he refused to accept this Panth, she insisted for divorce. The witness has also stated that the behaviour of the respondent with his parents was cruel. The respondent used to help the young boys and girls in developing love and physical relations. Once when the respondent was found in suspicious circumstances, he advised her not to involve in such activities. The respondent threatened him to commit suicide. He called the father and brother-in-law of the respondent and informed them about all these things. He has also stated that when he got the employment in Railways and was living in Bhusawal, the respondent came to bhusawal and persuaded him for divorce. ( 12 ) THE appellant has stated that in august 1996, the respondent left her marital home and went to her parental home along with her brother and while going, respondent told him that hereafter, she will not come to his house and will get the divorce through the Court. Thereafter, sincere attempts were made to bring the respondent back to her marital home. He himself with other relatives went to the parental home of the respondent and persuaded her to return back to her marital home, but she did not agree to come with him. ( 13 ) FURTHER the appellant affirmed that he served the respondent with a notion Ex. P-1 but the respondent did not pay any heed to the same. ( 14 ) RAJENDRA (P. W. 2) has also stated that he along with other persons went to the parental home of the respondent for bringing her back to marital home but she did not agree to it and the father, brother and other relatives of the respondent misbehaved with them. ( 15 ) SONU (P. W. 3), the father of the appellant has stated that when his son (appellant) was working at Bhusawal, the respondent used to live with him at Nepanagar. During this period, her behaviour with him and his wife was cruel. She was not obeying them and used to quarrel with her mother-in-law. She used to say that she wanted to marry a teacher but her parents married her to the appellant against her will. The witnesses have also stated that the respondent has deserted the appellant and was living with her parents. She was not obeying them and used to quarrel with her mother-in-law. She used to say that she wanted to marry a teacher but her parents married her to the appellant against her will. The witnesses have also stated that the respondent has deserted the appellant and was living with her parents. ( 16 ) AS against this, the respondent examined herself and her father Bhimrao (NAW-2 ). The respondent has stated that her relations with her husband and parents-in-law have been very cordial but her husband and in-laws were not happy with her because of the fact that sufficient dowry was not given. She has also stated that she never asked her husband to give divorce. As she filed a petition for grant of maintenance, the husband has filed this petition for divorce. She has also stated that she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In those proceedings she has been granted Rs. 1,000. 00 per month by way of maintenance. She sent a reply to the notice given by the appellant. She has great love for her husband and she is willing to live with him. ( 17 ) BHIM Rao (P. W. 2), the father of the respondent has also stated that the respondent, his daughter, is willing to live happy marital life with her husband. He is also ready to send her back to her marital home but the appellant is insisting for divorce. Appellant and his relatives visited him home and insisted for divorce. The respondent was willing to go with them but they did not take her with them. ( 18 ) THE instances of cruelty stated by the appellant and his witnesses are general. How she misbehaved with the parents of the appellant has not been specified. The respondent has admitted that she advised her husband to accept the Mahanubhav Panth which teaches to lead simple life, take vegetarian food and to go to temple every day. This faith does not preclude the followere from leading a marital life. When she persuaded her husband to accept this faith, he simply said that after some time he will think of adopting the same. This can hardly be said to be a cruelty. The allegation of desertion also cannot be accepted in the background that the respondent has stated that she has always been willing and still willing to live with her husband. This can hardly be said to be a cruelty. The allegation of desertion also cannot be accepted in the background that the respondent has stated that she has always been willing and still willing to live with her husband. She has also filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. In reply to notice also, the respondent expressed her willingness to live with her husband. ( 19 ) IT is well-settled that specific acts of cruelty must be pleaded to enable the opposite party to meet those allegations and fake and general complaint will not help any party. ( 20 ) DOUBTLESS the burden must lie on the appellant to establish his case. Ordinarily, the burden lies on the party which affirms a fact, not on the other party which denies it. Where there is no convincing evidence adduced by the husband to support his allegation of cruelty by his wife he is not entitled to divorce for want of proof to the satisfaction of Court. Merely because the respondent persuaded her husband to accept mahanubhav Panth which preaches to lead simple life and take vegetarian food, the same cannot be said to be cruelty. The words "treated with cruelty" appearing in Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act emphasised that harsh conduct of certain intensity and persistence must emanate from the spouse against whom the petition for divorce is made. ( 21 ) ON accepting the evidence of the appellant, which is nothing but oral statement of interested witnesses with improbabilities, to be true, it cannot be said that the cumulative conduct was sufficiently serious to say that from a reasonable person's point of view after a consideration of any excuse which the respondent might have in the circumstances conduct is such that appellant ought not to be called upon to endure it. Where there is no reliable evidence on record, except the bare statement of the husband and his relatives that the wife used to misbehave with him or other members of his family or she gave threats of committing suicide, the allegations of husband cannot be relied upon for granting decree of divorce. Where there is no reliable evidence on record, except the bare statement of the husband and his relatives that the wife used to misbehave with him or other members of his family or she gave threats of committing suicide, the allegations of husband cannot be relied upon for granting decree of divorce. ( 22 ) DURING his examination in the case as a witness the appellant was prepared that the respondent is willing to go with him and he may take her but the applicant refused to accept this proposal and told that he is not willing to live with her and seeks divorce. The appellant has admitted that on 31-8-1996, when his wife left her marital home, she went along with her brother for the pose of Goculpooja and it cannot be said that she left her marital home with a determination that she will never come back and the allegation of the appellant that the respondent deserted him has rightly not been accepted by the trial Court. ( 23 ) THE respondent has contravened the allegations made by the appellant and expressed her willingness to go with the husband and live with him. Her conduct that she filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights also suggests her bona fides. Even if it is accepted that the respondent went with her brother to her parental house, the act of the wife to go to her parental house with. the permission of the appellant cannot be believed as amounting to the matrimonial offence of cruelty. ( 24 ) SO far as the ground of desertion is concerned, the gist of this matrimonial offence consists of deserting spouse with an intention of never to return to marital home. Desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, where the wife has always expressed her readiness and willingness to live with the husband and filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, it cannot be said that the wife had an intention to bring co-habitation permanently and had animus deserendi. In the present case, where the wife has always expressed her readiness and willingness to live with the husband and filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, it cannot be said that the wife had an intention to bring co-habitation permanently and had animus deserendi. ( 25 ) THE burden of proof Is on the appellant and he has to establish beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court, the allegation of desertion throughout the entire period of two years before filing of the petition as well as that such desertion was without just cause. The appellant has failed to prove desertion by wife beyond any shadow of doubt. The trial Court has rightly assessed the evidence of plaintiff. On the point of cruelty and desertion, the facts and circumstances do not show that the wife had animus deserendi and the evidence clearly reveals that she tried to live with her husband and wanted to live with him. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court on the basis of evidence does not call for any interference. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that In fact the wife is not willing to live with the husband as she has adopted Mahanubhav Panth, she has irretrievably broken the marriage thread. Living separately for a very long time has purresulted in irretrievable break down of the marriage and therefore, the appeal should be allowed. ( 27 ) THE contention cannot be accepted. The approach of the Court should be to preserve the matrimonial home and be reluclant to dissolve the marriage on mere asking by one of the parties. The marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved only on the averments made by one of the partics that as the marriage between them has broken down; no useful purpose would be served to keep it alive. The husband was totally obstinate. It cannot be said that wife has irretrievably broken the marriage. ( 28 ) IN view of the above discussion the appeal filed by the husband fails and is accordingly, dismissed, Costs as incurred. Appeal dismissed. .