D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed in O. P. No. 6717 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Kurnool, which was filed under Section 13 of Hindu marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce. The trial Court on 30. 6. 1992 allowed the said O. P. , and thereby dissolved the marriage of the petitioner/husband with the respondent//wife by granting a decree of divorce. Aggrieved by the same, appellant/ wife preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court in the Original petition. ( 3 ) THE facts, which are not in dispute, are that the couple got married in the year 1981 and they lived together for about nine years. Afterwards it seems there arose differences, as a result, wife and husband started living separately. ( 4 ) BE that as it may, husband filed o. P. No. 6717 of 1991 seeking decree of divorce on the ground that he was being denied right of conjugal society by his wife. It is his allegation that his wife was suffering from some sort of disorder and she is aggressive in nature. Therefore, it is alleged that such denial of conjugal society by wife amounts to cruelty, which should result in granting a decree of divorce. ( 5 ) WIFE made certain allegations against her husband in order to repel the averments made by husband. ( 6 ) IT is an admitted fact that earlier wife filed two criminal cases, particulars of which are not very much relevant, and it is also a fact that in those cases husband got orders of acquittal. ( 7 ) IN order to substantiate respective contentions, parties gotthemselves examined as P. W. 1 and R. W. 1. Further, on behalf of husband Ex. A-1 lawyer s notice dated 13-7-1990 got issued by husband to wife and ex. A-2 reply notice dated 10-8-1990 have been marked. No documents were marked on behalf of wife. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is relevant to refer important aspects that were spoken to by husband in his deposition as P. W. 1. A-2 reply notice dated 10-8-1990 have been marked. No documents were marked on behalf of wife. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is relevant to refer important aspects that were spoken to by husband in his deposition as P. W. 1. ( 9 ) HE deposed that his wife denied conjugal society without anyjustifiable reason and as such he was subjected to mental cruelty. He further deposed that all the efforts made by him became futile. it is his further deposition that his wife was violent and adamant whenever he tried to have conjugal society with her and it is also deposed that she was not attending to regular household work, on the contrary she was always in nostalgic mood. It is his specific deposition that his wife ascribes him mental disorder. It is further deposed that his wife deserted him and started living with her parents since the year 1981 (sic. 1991 ). According to P. W. 1, a notice for divorce was got issued to his wife. He further deposed that they have been living together since 1983 by setting up independent family. It is his further evidence that during the year 1983 and 1984 he worked as Works Inspector at Nandikotkur and atmakur and he was being transferred from place to place. it is his evidence that when he was working at Adoni, his parents joined him. He also deposed about jewellery and cash that were of fered to him at the time of marriage, and those details are not necessary for resolving the controversy between the parties. ( 10 ) IT is his categorical statement that he was not the consenting party to lead marital life with his wife even if she is ready to come and join him. This was the very stand taken by the husband when this Court initiated conciliatory proceedings in this matter. This is all the evidence of the husband in order to seek a decree of divorce. ( 11 ) ON the other hand, wife as R. W. 1 deposed that her marriage was performed in the year 1981 and that at that time her husband was studying Engineering at madras. This is all the evidence of the husband in order to seek a decree of divorce. ( 11 ) ON the other hand, wife as R. W. 1 deposed that her marriage was performed in the year 1981 and that at that time her husband was studying Engineering at madras. She further deposed that prior to 1981 her parents-in-law were residing at sindhanur in Raichur district, and after they came and started staying with her husband, they started demanding her to bring some gold and cash from her parents. It is her further evidence that in the year 1990 when some mediators came to her house at Aluru to take her to her parents house, they were told by her husband that unless and until gold and cash were given she would not be permitted to go to her parents house. She further deposed that she was not suffering from any deficiency and she was competent to procure children and when she asked her husband for medical check up by a Doctor, he did not pay any heed. ( 12 ) MOST conspicuously, she deposed in categorical terms that she was ready and willing to join her husband to give conjugal society to him while she was living with her husband. Of course, she alleged simultaneously that her husband wanted to give divorce for getting more dowry by marrying for a second time. ( 13 ) IN the cross-examination, however, she admitted that she filed criminal complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, nandyal under the provisions of Dowry prohibition Act and she also sent petition to the Collector and other functionaries complaining against her husband. ( 14 ) IT appears that wife underwent medical examination through a Doctor but no proof is pressed into service. Ultimately the whole controversy appears to be that wife was not able to beget children and that she was not offering conjugal happiness to her husband, which according to him amounts to cruelty. ( 15 ) ON the basis of evidence placed on record it seems the entire controversy revolves around incapacity on the part of wife to give conjugal society to husband and in not begetting children and the averments and allegations made against each other are only incidental. ( 15 ) ON the basis of evidence placed on record it seems the entire controversy revolves around incapacity on the part of wife to give conjugal society to husband and in not begetting children and the averments and allegations made against each other are only incidental. ( 16 ) IN the light of the statements made by both parties in their respective evidence before the trial Court, the point that arises for consideration before us is whether the statement made by the husband making certain allegations for purpose of grant of divorce is established and consequently whether the grounds spoken to or demonstrated are at all sufficient to grant a decree of divorce? ( 17 ) IT is on record, and as spoken to by the husband in his deposition as P. W. 1, that his wife was willing party to join him and whereas husband is not willing. It is further on record that since the date of marriage in the year 1981 they both lived happily for about nine years and problem if any started actually when wife s parents-in-law came and joined when they were living at Alur. lt further appears from the averments and counter allegations that trouble had shot up because wife could not beget children. Incidentally, it is to be seen that in all the years of their living together there was ever (sic. never) any complaint against wife. ( 18 ) FROM the averments made by the husband, as referred to above, as his wife could not beget children and she could not offer conjugal society, petition had been filed seeking divorce. If this is treated to be true, there is no explanation what-so-ever offered by husband as to why he did not resort to this drastic step in all the nine years of their marital life. It is not his case, as seen from the evidence on record that he did ever complain about unhappiness in non-extending conjugal society by his wife. On the other hand, as already pointed out, wife is always a consenting party to live with husband, whereas husband is not. This attitude of husband only reveals that for other reasons which were not actually revealed, he is not inclined to be associated with his wife. On the other hand, as already pointed out, wife is always a consenting party to live with husband, whereas husband is not. This attitude of husband only reveals that for other reasons which were not actually revealed, he is not inclined to be associated with his wife. Except his self-serving few statements made in his deposition as P. W. 1, there is nothing on record to establish such an averment. Mere deposing as to what had been averred in o. P. No. 6717 of 1991 is of no avail, in case where a decree of divorce had been sought by husband on the ground as the one alleged in the present case. It is to be noted further that when he had been living with his wife at different places serving as Government servant, he did not choose to make any such complaint like desertion or denial of conjugal society by his wife. ( 19 ) ON the contrary, wife as R. W. 1 stated in her evidence that she was all the while willing to join her husband and she was not incapacitated to beget children. She further deposed that she wanted to have medical examination with regard to the alleged deficiency and it is her specific statement that she had asked her husband to take her to a Doctor in that regard. ( 20 ) A mere ground of not begetting children cannot be treated as an act of cruelty, particularly when husband did not make any complaint in all the nine years when they lived together and making such a complaint for the first time when he filed a petition seeking a decree of divorce, is indicative of the fact that he had something in his mind and thought than what actually meets the eye, not certainly denial of conjugal society to the husband. ( 21 ) LEARNED counsel for the husband contended that wife had initiated two criminal proceedings against husband, one alleging act of bigamy and the other alleging demand of Dowry prohibited under Dowry Prohibition act. Of course both the cases ended in acquittal as informed by the counsel appearing for husband. Learned counsel submits further that this attitude on the part of wife in initiating criminal proceedings is also a ground for seeking divorce inasmuch as the same amounts to cruelty. Of course both the cases ended in acquittal as informed by the counsel appearing for husband. Learned counsel submits further that this attitude on the part of wife in initiating criminal proceedings is also a ground for seeking divorce inasmuch as the same amounts to cruelty. We are not prepared to accept this contention, as mere filing criminal cases related to matrimonial disputes cannot be treated as an act of cruelty by wife. It is further to be seen that these cases came to be filed only subsequent to strained relationship between the spouses. In other words, initiation of criminal proceedings against husband might be deemed to have taken place due to various reasons including that of emotional. So long as wife is willing to live with husband any aberrations in family fabric which are quite natural and would get healed up or subsided after some point of time cannot be treated as acts of cruelty. ( 22 ) A Division Bench of this Court in P. Sri lakshmi Maruthi Hara Gopal v. P. Seshu kumari, observed that a solitary act of leaving matrimonial home cannot be termed as desertion, desertion implies a continuous course of conduct which can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 23 ) IN the instant case desertion was one of the grounds taken by the husband, but the main ground was that she was not extending conjugal happiness to him. As already pointed out, this allegation had never been there when both the spouses lived together for nine years. Therefore, it can be construed and inference could however, be drawn that only for the purpose of filing petition for divorce, this ground has been invented. ( 24 ) IN Shyam Sunder Kohli v. Sushma kohii, having considered facts governing the case therein, the Hon ble Supreme Court, observed thus: "on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage, the Court must not lightly dissolve a marriage. It is only in extreme circumstances that the Court may use this ground for dissolving a marriage. In this case, the Respondent, at all stages and even before us, has been ready to go back to the appellant. It is the Appellant who has refused to take the Respondent back. The appellant has made baseless allegations against the Respondent. It is only in extreme circumstances that the Court may use this ground for dissolving a marriage. In this case, the Respondent, at all stages and even before us, has been ready to go back to the appellant. It is the Appellant who has refused to take the Respondent back. The appellant has made baseless allegations against the Respondent. He even went to the extent of filing a complaint of bigamy, under Section 494, ipc, against the Respondent. That complaint came to be dismissed. As stated above, the evidence shows that the Respondent was forced to leave the matrimonial home. It is the Appellant who has been at fault. It can hardly lie in the mouth of a party who has been at fault and who has not allowed the marriage to work to claim that the marriage should be dissolved on the ground of irretrievable break down. " ( 25 ) FROM the above pronouncements, it is clear that though in normal course of events, when there is no chance of retrieval, divorce could be granted and that factor by itself cannot always be a ground to seek divorce in all the circumstances. ( 26 ) MARITAL tie between wife and husband has been considered to be a holy relationship and Courts in all cases shall not resort to grant divorce for mere asking, which would, in our considered view, be contrary to the age-old faith in the very system of marriage. Therefore, on an overall view of the matter, we are of the view that the husband did not make any attempt to establish his case, except making self-serving statement, that too, nine years after the marriage, and further mere fact that several years have elapsed and the husband has been living with another woman, which fact is off the record, cannot be factors leading to the conclusion that the relationship cannot be retrieved or that it is a case of prolonged incompatibility, in which event, Courts may have to exercise discretion to grant relief of divorce. ( 27 ) INCIDENTALLY learned counsel appearing for the husband contends that wife made certain allegations in her reply notice marked as Ex. A-2 against her husband about his potency, and, such allegations which are baseless are to be treated as acts of cruelty. ( 27 ) INCIDENTALLY learned counsel appearing for the husband contends that wife made certain allegations in her reply notice marked as Ex. A-2 against her husband about his potency, and, such allegations which are baseless are to be treated as acts of cruelty. We are of the view that the said contention cannot be sustained for the reason that when the wife deposed that she advised her husband to go to a doctor to have a check up to know the reasons for not begetting children. Hence we are of the view that contents and allegations made in Ex. A-2 have to be read or understood in that context, more so, when this ground had not been taken specifically before the Court below. It is only for the first time this ground has been taken before this court. ( 28 ) THE Decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the husband reported in Jayakrishna v. Smt. Surekha and Usharani lenka v. Panigrahi Subhash Chandra Dash are rendered dealing with fact situation obtaining therein i. e. , hurling baseless allegations amounting to moral turpitude on the part of husband and irretrievable break down of marriage. Though the principles laid down in the said judgments are unexceptionable, but they are not applicable to the present set of facts, particularly in view of the authoritative pronouncement made by the Apex court in Shyam Sunder Kohli. v. Sushma Kohli (2 supra), which applies to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case in all fours. ( 29 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the order rendered by the Court below is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.