Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. This is wifes appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.5.2003 vide which the husbands petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage between the parties, has been accepted and a decree of divorce has been passed. 2. Marriage between the parties was solemnised in April, 1985 in accordance with Sikh religious rites and ceremonies. The parties lived together at Nawan Shahr and marriage was consummated. Three children, namely, Amandeep Kaur, Sumanpreet Kaur and Opinder Singh were born out of the wed-lock. According to petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner-husband, relations between the parties remained cordial upto 1987, but thereafter respondent, hereinafter referred to as the appellate-wife, started craving for luxurious life. When petitioner-husband could not meet her demands, she started misbehaving and insulting him in the presence of his friends and relatives, thereby causing harassment to him. In 1989 petitioner-husband went to foreign country in order to earn his livelihood. He came back to India in 1991. During his stay abroad, he had been sending money to the appellant-wife. He, however, came to know that while he was away, the wife stayed out of the matrimonial home for most of the time. During his stay in India from 1992 to 1995, petitioner found that the appellant-wife would leave the matrimonial home without informing him and would stay out of the house for days together. When questioned about her absence, she retorted that petitioner-husband had no business to check her freedom and she threatened to commit suicide in case he did so. On a query made by the petitioner-husband regarding the money sent by him, the appellant-wife got infuriated and levelled. various false allegations against him. In the month of February, 1999, appellant-wife left the matrimonial home in the absence of the petitioner, taking away all the jewellery and other articles, but she left behind all the three children. Petitioner-husband convened panchayats to bring her back to matrimonial home but she refused to resume-cohabitation. Accordingly, the petitioner-husband sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. Appellant-wife contested the pleas taken in the petition while submitting written statement. She denied that she had craved for a luxurious life. Petitioner-husband convened panchayats to bring her back to matrimonial home but she refused to resume-cohabitation. Accordingly, the petitioner-husband sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. Appellant-wife contested the pleas taken in the petition while submitting written statement. She denied that she had craved for a luxurious life. According to her 2-3 months after the marriage, petitioner started making demand for more dowry and when she expressed her inability to meet with his demands, he started giving beating to her. It is further pleaded that appellant-wife comes from a very poor family. Her father is already dead. Her mother is an old, infirm and sick lady. One of her brothers is lunatic. Another brother is living separately and is not even on speaking terms with her and their mother. She categorically denied having misbehaved or insulted the petitioner-husband in the presence of his friends and/or relatives. She pleaded that petitioner-husband went abroad twice, but he never sent any money from there. She also denied having left the matrimonial home without informing the petitioner or that she would stay away from the matrimonial home for days together. Rather it is pleaded that she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the petitioner-husband. She also denied that the petitioner had convened any panchayat. Rather, it is asserted that the panchayats were convened by the respondents family, but the petitioner-husband himself did not allow the appellant-wife to join the matrimonial home. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the - respondent has been staying away from the petitioner due to reasonable cause? OPR 2. Whether the respondent is guilty of subjecting the petitioner to cruelty? OPP 3. If issue No. 2, succeeds, then whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce? OPR 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 5. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner? OPR 6. Whether the petitioner is barred by his act and conduct to file the present petition? OPR 7. Whether the petitioner has concealed the material and true facts from this Court, if so, its effect? OPR 8. Whether it is the petitioner who is guilty of subjecting the respondent to cruelty and deserting her, if so, its effect? OPR 9. Relief. 5. OPR 7. Whether the petitioner has concealed the material and true facts from this Court, if so, its effect? OPR 8. Whether it is the petitioner who is guilty of subjecting the respondent to cruelty and deserting her, if so, its effect? OPR 9. Relief. 5. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record, accepted the petition filed by the husband and granted a decree of divorce in his favour. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 2.5.2003, the appellant-wife has come up in the present appeal. 6. Appellant-wife has challenged the finding of the learned trial Court on Issue Nos. l to 3. It is argued that it would be evident from the evidence on record that the appellant-wife had always been ready and willing to join the matrimonial home. She had made all efforts including convening of Panchayats and requested the petitioner-husband to let her join the matrimonial home. However, she was turned out of the matrimonial home alongwith her 15 days old child. The statement of appellant-wife is fully corroborated by independent witness RW-1 Randhir Singh, who is Member Panchayat of the village. This witness categorically stated that a Panchayat was convened at the house of the petitioner-husband and he was requested to rehabilitate his wife, but he as well as his family members remained adamant and demanded more money. On the other hand, the witnesses produced by the petitioner-husband, namely, PW-2 Mohinder Singh and PW-3 Malkiat Singh are related and interested witnesses. PW-2 Mohinder Singh is maternal uncle of petitioner-husband, while Malkiat Singh is husband of Mohinder Singhs sister. The learned Counsel further argued that the parties were married in the year 1985 and the appellant-wife lived in the matrimonial home for 15 years and three children were born out of the wed-lock. He also urged that the trial Court has totally ignored the fact that there was no intention on the part of the appellant-wife forsaking or abandoning the petitioner-husband. Rather the husband had turned her out of the matrimonial home. It is further argued that the trial Court has mainly based the judgment on the fact that the appellant-wife has caused mental cruelty to the husband which is duly submitted (supported) by the evidence produced by the wife. j 7. Rather the husband had turned her out of the matrimonial home. It is further argued that the trial Court has mainly based the judgment on the fact that the appellant-wife has caused mental cruelty to the husband which is duly submitted (supported) by the evidence produced by the wife. j 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the husband argued that it is well proved on record that the wife had left matrimonial home in the month of February, 1999 and since then she is staying away from the matrimonial home. Even a child, who was on breast feeding, had been left behind. It is further argued that the appellant-wife had no intention to join the matrimonial home. She neither filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights nor ever claimed custody of her minor children. It is further argued that her plea with regard to convening of Panchayats is also not substantiated. According to her she accompanied Randhir Singh and others in a panchayat convened in the house of the petitioner-husband but the husband did not allow her to join the matrimonial home. Learned Counsel referred to cross-examination of appellant-wife who appeared as RW-2. For reference, relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:- "I am staying with my parents for the last 3 or four years. I was turned out in February 1999 and since them I had not joined the Society of the petitioner. When I was turned out, the period of 15 years had elapsed from marriage. The third child namely Opinder Singh was born at Ludhiana in February , 1999. When I left the house, the age of Opinder Singh was about 2-1/2 years. I did not take child with me, from Ludhiana. It is correct that when I came from Ludhiana, the child Opinder Singh was breast feeding. Since then, I have not met the said child, nor I filed any petition for getting the custody of the children from the petitioner. Nor I filed any petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. nor I issued any notice to the petitioner that he has turned me out from his house." 8. Learned Counsel further argued that petitioner-husband was running a shop in order to keep the body and soul of his children intact and, therefore, he had to stay away from the house most of the time. Learned Counsel further argued that petitioner-husband was running a shop in order to keep the body and soul of his children intact and, therefore, he had to stay away from the house most of the time. As such there was nobody to give motherly care to his children. Appellant-wife did not even care for breast feeding child nor she ever enquired about the well being of other children. Such a grave neglect on her part amounts to causing mental cruelty to the husband. Learned Counsel further argued that only the relatives and family members would be interested in rehabilitating the parties and therefore his maternal uncle Mohinder Singh PW-2 and other relative Malkiat Singh PW-3 had accompanied him to request appellant-wife to come back to matrimonial home but she refused to oblige them. 9. In the case in hand, admittedly both the parties are living separately since February, 1999 and prior thereto they had lived together for about 15 years and three children were born out of the wed-lock. From the evidence produced by petitioner-husband, it is well proved that he had made efforts to bring appellant-wife back to the matrimonial home. On the other hand, appellant-wife has miserably failed to prove that she had made any efforts to resume cohabitation. She herself admitted in cross-examination that she had not joined the society of petitioner-husband since February, 1999. She did not file any petition for restitution of conjugal rights or any application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. seeking maintenance. She did not even file any petition seeking custody of her children. She herself admitted that when she left the matrimonial home, the youngest child was breast-feeding. There is no evidence that she had ever approached petitioner-husband to know the well being of their children. Petitioner-husband is running a shop to earn the livelihood. It could be anybodys guess as to how the children born out of this wed-lock suffered on account of the neglect at the hands of their mother and the father went out to make his both ends meet. In view of the evidence on record it is well proved that neither appellant-wife had any intention to join matrimonial; home nor she ever cared to look after her own children. It appears that there was total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion of course is not the withdrawal from a place, but from the state of things. In view of the evidence on record it is well proved that neither appellant-wife had any intention to join matrimonial; home nor she ever cared to look after her own children. It appears that there was total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion of course is not the withdrawal from a place, but from the state of things. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court arrived at, on all the issues. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.