Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. Having failed to get a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") on grounds of cruelty and desertion, appellant has come up in appeal to this court against the judgment dated 17.12.1997 of the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. 2. Parties got married on 5.9.1984 and a female child, Mandeep Kaur, was born to them, on 27.11.1985. 3. According to the appellant, the respondent wanted that they should stay at her parents house at Adampur, so that she could look after her mother. He did not agree to it. Therefore, she used to quarrel with him. She would leave for her parents house, without his knowledge, At times, she would refuse to cook food also. He, however, went on tolerating all this, in the hope that better sense would prevail on her. But, in August 1991, she left for her mothers house, in his absence, and took along all her valuable clothes and ornaments. He reported the matter to the police whereupon a meeting was arranged at Police Station, Bullowal, on 13.9.1991, which was attended by both parties, besides mother of the respondent and respectables of both sides and wherein it was agreed that parties would seek mutual divorce, on payment of Rs. 80,000/- by the appellant to the respondent, for the maintenance. The appellant was also to return the dowry articles to the respondent. The latter, however, did not abide by this decision and kept on putting off the matter, on one pretext or the other. 4. The case of respondent, on the other hand, is that the appellant had been maltreating her, and ultimately, he turned her out of the matrimonial house, alongwith her minor daughter, in three wearing clothes. She, therefore, had to seek refuge at her parents house under compelling circumstances. She denied having arrived at any agreement with the appellant. It was further pleaded that the latter had levelled false and baseless allegations against her, She had always remained obedient and affectionate to him as well as his mother so long as she lived at her matrimonial house. 5. The trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause or excuse? OPP 3. Relief. 6. 5. The trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause or excuse? OPP 3. Relief. 6. After the conclusion of trial, findings in respect of both issues went against the appellant, resulting into dismissal of divorce petition. 7. Learned counsel for the parties addressed this court with regard to finding on issue No. 2, only. In respect of the other issue viz. issue No. 1, learned counsel for the appellant very fairly stated that he had nothing to say about the finding with regard thereto, as evidence on record was not sufficient to prove the same. The finding on issue No. 1 is, therefore, affirmed. 8. Now, coming to the finding on issue No. 2. No doubt, it is an admitted fact that, for the last many years, respondent has been living at her mothers place. But, this fact, alone would not be sufficient to hold that she has deserted the appellant within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act. In order to succeed, the latter (appellant) was required to prove that respondent had left his company, without any reasonable cause or excuse, But, the evidence on record shows that he had failed to prove so. Out of the witnesses produced by him, PW-1 to PW-3 had nothing to say about the circumstances under which the respondent left, or was compelled to leave, her matrimonial house. Their testimony pertains to the alleged compromise, Mark-A, only which, according to them, was effected between the parties in the year 1991. The respondent having categorically denied that she had entered into any such compromise with the appellant, onus was on the latter to prove the same. But, he failed to discharge this onus. Mark-A does not bear the signatures/thump impression of the respondent. And, this fact is not disputed by the appellant even. That being so, the respondent cannot be connected with this document, on any basis. The trial court had, therefore, rightly not exhibited this document or admitted it into evidence. 9. The plea of appellant that respondent had left her matrimonial house and started living at her mothers place, in order to look after her, has also remained un-substantiated, as no independent evidence was led to prove it. The trial court had, therefore, rightly not exhibited this document or admitted it into evidence. 9. The plea of appellant that respondent had left her matrimonial house and started living at her mothers place, in order to look after her, has also remained un-substantiated, as no independent evidence was led to prove it. Learned counsel for the appellant could refer to the solitary statement of the appellant in this regard. Had there been any truth in this plea, the appellant could have produced some member of his parental family, or a relation, or co-villager, to state that the respondent had left the house, of her own valuation, or had indicated/expressed her desire to live at her mothers place, But, no such evidence was produced by him. 10. On the other hand, reason for which the respondent had to take refuge at her mothers place, has appeared in the evidence, produced by the respondent, in the form of the testimony of RW-1 Davinder Kaur, RW-2 Balbir Singh and RW-3 Pritam Singh, All three of them belong to the village of the appellant himself viz. Village Bhagowal, RW1 is his neighbor whereas RW-2 is the Sarpanch of his village (Bhagowal). Both of them testified that he (appellant) used to beat the respondent. RW-1 further stated that respondent never refused to cook meal or serve the same to the appellant or his mother. RW-2 even stated that the respondent wants to reside with the appellant but the later has refused to permit her to do so. RW-3, who is also a co-villager of the appellant, deposed that not only the behaviour of the respondent with her mother-in-law was good, she even used to co-operate with her, in (house-hold) work also. He further testified that the respondent used to go to meet her mother, with the consent of the appellant and further that it is the latter who does not want to rehabilitate her. In fact, in an effort to make the court believe that fault lies squarely with the appellant, this witness went to the extent of stating that he was ready to give guarantee for respondents good behaviour towards the appellant and his mother and also her co-operation with them. The appellant has not alleged any enmity with him or ill-will against him. The appellant has not alleged any enmity with him or ill-will against him. That being so, unless this witness was morally convinced about the good behaviour of the respondent, he would not have volunteered to give the said guarantee. The testimony of the respondent herself also (as RW4) is in tune with the evidence of her witnesses. 11. The evidence on record, thus, clearly shows that there is nothing wrong with the respondent, and the entire fault lies with the appellant himself. It appears that for one reason or the other, it is appellant who does not want that respondent should live with him. Relevant part of his cross-examination indicative of his such stance, reads as under:- ".... Since we have been living separately for a long time, that is the reason that I am not now prepared to take the respondent. I cannot assign any other reason...." 12. The testimony of none else but Sarpanch (RW-2) and two other respectables (RW-1 and RW-3) of appellants own village shows that the respondent had always been cooperating and behaving well with the appellant and also his mother and further that the appellant had been beating her. If under such circumstances, she took refuge at her mothers house, after she was turned out of her matrimonial house by the appellant, it cannot, by any method of interpretation, be said that she had deserted the appellant. 13. In Baldev Singh v. Karamjit Kaur, (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 666 which squarely applies to this case, this court held as follows:- "Thus, the trial court has rightly held that on account of this cruel behaviour of the husband, the respondent-wife has a legal right to live separately. The husband-petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong and on this count he cannot be allowed to say that she has deserted him or by launching that criminal prosecution she has treated him with cruelty. Conversely he is guilty of constructive desertion." 14. In view of the above, nothing wrong can be found with the findings of the trial court, to the effect that the appellant had failed to prove the ground of desertion. The same is, resultantly, affirmed. 15. The impugned judgment and decree are, therefore, upheld and appeal is dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.