JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2702-1999 passed by first Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 33-A/97, whereby the suit filed by respondent (husband) for divorce has been decreed. 2. Parties are Hindus. Their marriage was solemnized in June. 1989 as per Hindu Rites and out of their wedlock one female child namely Shivani Gupta was born. At present both appellant and respondent are residing separate. 3. Respondent filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, ''the Act") for obtaining divorce against his wife Smt. Anita Gupta (the appellant) alleging that the appellant during her stay at her matrimonial house was misbehaving with her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Even she used to abuse her mother-in-law. Appellant without any sufficient reasons had deserted her husband for the last seven years from the date of fling of the application and did not come back although various attempts have been made. therefore, on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion, divorce was sought. 4. Appellant refuted the allegations leveled against her and pleaded that while she was Jiving in her matrimonial home, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law for demand of dowry as a result thereof she was forced to live in her parental house. In one of the conciliation proceeding respondent agreed to keep the appellant and to pay Rs. 2000/- monthly and deposit Rs. 50,0001- in bank in the name of her daughter and also assured not to cause any physical or mental torture to the appellant, but failed to comply with any of the term and as usual, respondent kept continual misbehaving with her. At present also appellant is ready to live with her husband and to continue her matrimonial life. 5. Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record holding that the appellant without having any sufficient reasons deserted the respondent decreed the suit for divorce in his favour. 6. Both the parties are heard and record of lower Court perused. 7. The suit has only been decreed on the ground of desertion. Relevant provisions relating to divorce on the ground of desertion are reproduced as under: "13. 6. Both the parties are heard and record of lower Court perused. 7. The suit has only been decreed on the ground of desertion. Relevant provisions relating to divorce on the ground of desertion are reproduced as under: "13. Divorce - (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 - (1b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. 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 willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be constructed accordingly." 8. From bare reading of the above provisions, it is manifest that for invoking the said provision for obtaining decree following are the mandatory requirements - (i) Desertion for continuous period of two years or more preceding the presentation of the petition. (ii) Desertion should be without reasonable cause and without the consent or wish of the party deserted. (iii) Willful neglect or to say separation with intent to bring marital relation to an end. 9. Respondent-Chandra Sekhar Gupta in his petition has pleaded that for the last around seven years without reasonable and sufficient reasons his wife Smt. Anita Gupta is living apart from him. The burden lies on the respondent to prove the said pleading. He stated in his deposition that after marriage Anita Gupta lived with him for about 9-10 months, thereafter she delivered a female child in her parental home where she lived for six months. Thereafter he took her back and kept her in a rented house of Pad mini Gupta where she lived for about ten days and then left for her parental home where she continuously lived for three years. Again after compromise Anita Gupta was brought, but she lived for only three days and again left for her parental home where she lived for one year, thereafter she was again brought and kept in a rented house of Horilal Devangan. Conciliation was done by Satrughan Gupta. Again after compromise Anita Gupta was brought, but she lived for only three days and again left for her parental home where she lived for one year, thereafter she was again brought and kept in a rented house of Horilal Devangan. Conciliation was done by Satrughan Gupta. Anita Gupta lived there for about ten days and thereafter left for her parental house. He accepted that Anita Gupta lived with him upto 1994. 10. Suit was filed on 05/04/1997, as per plaint allegation Smt. Anita left her husband seven years ago from the presentation of the application it ' means she left her husband in the year 1990, but contrary to it, has been deposed by the respondent (the husband). On calculation it appears that Anita after marriage lived for one year, thereafter for delivery she had gone to her parental home, it means she left in 1990 and after passing six months she came back, means she came in the middle of 1991, she lived for a short period and again left and lived for 3 years in her parental home and after that she was again brought it means she came in or about the middle of 1994. She again lived for some time and left for her parental home where she again lived for one year and after that she was again brought, it means in the middle of 1995 she was again brought by her husband and kept, it means according to the statement of the respondent, she lived with him upto middle of 1995. The statement of Horilal (P.W.4) was very specific to the effect that the respondent and his wife lived in his house for about four years. If his evidence is read conjoined with the statement of respondent, then it appears that the appellant and respondent in company of each other lived upto middle of 1999. 11. Anita Gupta (DW/1) in her statement clearly deposed that since last two years she was living in her parental house and during this period, Court notice has been served; it means she is not conceding the fact that she and her husband were living separate since two years ago from the date of situation of the suit. 12. 11. Anita Gupta (DW/1) in her statement clearly deposed that since last two years she was living in her parental house and during this period, Court notice has been served; it means she is not conceding the fact that she and her husband were living separate since two years ago from the date of situation of the suit. 12. From the evidence adduced by the side of respondent, it was not proved that the appellant was living separate from him two years ago prior to institution of the suit and from the evidence of appellant also no such finding could be arrived at. 13. From the evidence of respondent himself it is evident that from time to time appellant was visiting her parental home and was returning back to cohabit with the respondent, all these circumstances made it probable that she never intended to end the marital tie, yet she is ready to join the company of her husband. This fact-also shows that she has no idea of breaking the marriage tie. 14. Learned lower Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and also erred in passing decree of divorce without there being a specific evidence and finding of continuous desertion of two years having intention to end the marital tie. Even the facts of the present case are such which shows that possibility of reunion of husband and wife exists, a baby from their wedlock is living and a long term has not elapsed so it cannot be said that the marriage is dead or it cannot be retrieved. 15. The finding on desertion passed by the trial Court is erroneous, as also against the evidence on record, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The appeal is partly allowed and accordingly the judgment and decree so far as it relates to grant of divorce passed by the trial court is set aside. Appeal Allowed.