Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is against the Judgment and decree dated 110.2000 passed by the Court below by which the learned Additional District Judge, Didwana District Nagaur dismissed the divorce petition filed by the applicant. 3. Brief facts of the case are that about in the year 1972-73 marriage of the applicant-husband and non applicant wife was solemnized when they were of the age of about 7-8 and 4-5 years respectively. As per the customs, the non-applicant was sent to the husband’s house after 12-13 years from the time of marriage. According to the applicant, his wife’s behaviour was abnormal, from the beginning. She used to go to her parents’ house without informing any body. She was totally non-cooperative. It is also alleged that since non applicants family was having about 60 bighas of land an cattle, therefore, her parents were also not interested in sending the non applicant to applicant’s house, so that non applicant may help the non applicant’s family members in day to day work. In the year 1988, a daughter born to the non applicant and as per custom, before delivery, she went to her parents’ house. After delivery she did not come to husband’s house for one year. Ultimately she came to her husband’s house after one year from the time of delivery, that too on the occasion of Deepawali. Thereafter also she left the house. It is alleged that in the month of January, 1991, the non applicant tried to put some chilli powder in the mouth of applicant’s brother’s daughter. It is also alleged that she gave beating to applicant’s mother and applicant’s mother was saved by one Bachan Singh and applicant’s brother Nimba Ram. After said incident, non applicant again left the house of the applicant. On 08.01.1991, the non applicant took her daughter and ran away, shouting that she will throw the girl in the well. It is stated that the applicant and his brother, with some difficulty, saved the minor girl. In addition to above allegations, the applicant alleged that the applicant developed a fear that non applicant was suffering from mental problem. For her treatment, he brought her to Jodhpur on 12.01.1991. It is stated that the applicant and his brother, with some difficulty, saved the minor girl. In addition to above allegations, the applicant alleged that the applicant developed a fear that non applicant was suffering from mental problem. For her treatment, he brought her to Jodhpur on 12.01.1991. When they dropped down from the taxi, the non applicant, by saying that she is coming after urination, she left the place and ran away and she was ultimately found near the roadways bus stand. When the applicant and his brother enquired why she ran away, she even refused to recognize the applicant. It is also alleged that even after the applicant tried to adjust with the non applicant but she even again ran away and since 1991 she is living in her parents’ house. 4. It is alleged that in the month of December, 1992, due to some family dispute of family of the non applicant, there was Panchayat. When the applicant came to know about said Panchayat, he with his brother, went to the house of the non applicant and requested the Panchayat to ask non applicant’s family members to send the non applicant to applicant’s house. After hearing both the parties, the members of the Panchayat asked the non applicant’s family to send the non applicant to the house of the applicant within ten days, otherwise the applicant will be free to take divorce. Despite this, the non applicant was not sent by her parents to applicant’s house nor she came herself . Again in the month of January, 1993, the applicant’s family members called the Panchayat wherein the members of the Panchayat, after hearing both the parties, decided that the applicant may take divorce. On these allegations, the divorce petition was filed by the applicant. 5. The non application submitted reply to the divorce petition and denied the allegation. According to the non applicant she was married to the applicant when she was of the age of 4-5 years. She admitted that she gave birth to one daughter but stated that when the applicant became lecturer, his behaviour towards non applicant became total hostile. Because of good status of the applicant, the applicant wanted to marry a good girl and to get rid from the non applicant. The applicant and the applicant’s family members jointly started harassing the non applicant. Because of good status of the applicant, the applicant wanted to marry a good girl and to get rid from the non applicant. The applicant and the applicant’s family members jointly started harassing the non applicant. It is alleged that applicant’s family members after giving beating to the applicant, thrown her out and, therefore, she is living in her parent’s house. However, according to the non applicant, she is living at her parents house since April, 1992 and not from 1991. According to the non applicant, her sister was also married to applicant’s brother and she also has been thrown out by the applicant’s family members and, therefore, she is also living in non applicant’s parent’s house. In reply to the divorce petition, she has not specifically denied about the allegations of two Panchayats. 6. Issues were framed and in support of the divorce petition, the applicant gave his statement and produced witnesses AW. 2 Hari Ram, AW. 3 Pura Ram, AW. 4 Dalu Ram, AW. 5 Chela Ram and AW. 6 Sanwta Ram, whereas non applicant gave her statement and produced her father as witness as NAW. 1 Mangana Ram. 7. The trial Court dismissed the divorce petition holding that the applicant failed to prove the allegation of cruelty against the non applicant. The trial Court observed that all allegations which were leveled in the divorce petition about abnormal behaviour of the non applicant and about cruelty were not pleaded in the reply to the applicant filed by the non applicant under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. The trial Court also observed that the witnesses of the applicant himself admitted that non applicant’s mental condition was good and she was not behaving abnormal. The trial Court also observed that it appears that the applicant and his family members were not willing to keep the non applicant. In view of the above, the trial Court rejected the allegation of cruelty as well as of desertion and dismissed the divorce petition vide impugned Judgment and decree dated 110.2000. 8. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the witnesses produced by the appellant proved that the non-applicant behaved abnormally and her act was of such nature which caused mental torture to the applicant. She tried to fill the mouth of small girl by chilli, she tried to throw her child in a well. 8. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the witnesses produced by the appellant proved that the non-applicant behaved abnormally and her act was of such nature which caused mental torture to the applicant. She tried to fill the mouth of small girl by chilli, she tried to throw her child in a well. She ran away on several occasions and put the applicant and his entire family in very embarrassing position. It is also submitted that the evidence produced by the applicant-appellant was wrongly discarded by the Court below on the ground that witnesses of the applicant somewhere admitted that the behaviour of the non applicant was not abnormal. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the applicant proved the fact of desertion and that fact is not only proved by the evidence of the applicant and the circumstances but is also proved from the fact that the non applicant never shown his willingness to live with the applicant. It is submitted that the allegation against the applicant that after his becoming lecturer, he with intention to marry another girl, left the non applicant, is absolutely vague and afterthought only. It is also submitted that the applicant made all efforts to bring the non applicant at his house but he failed. Contrary to it, it is not the case of the non applicant that she or her family members even made any effort to settle the dispute so that the applicant and non applicant both may live together. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the respondent was ready and willing to live with the applicant and still she is willing to live with the applicant appellant. It is submitted that both the parties were called in Court and the Court tried its best to reconcile the matter between both the parties. According to the learned Counsel for the respondent, non applicant’s daughter is of the age of 18 years and the applicant has done nothing for his daughter. It is also submitted that she is of marriageable age and despite Court’s efforts, the non-applicant has not been given anything. The learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that by leveling false allegation of mental disorder against the non applicant, the applicant appellant wants to avoid non applicant. It is also submitted that she is of marriageable age and despite Court’s efforts, the non-applicant has not been given anything. The learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that by leveling false allegation of mental disorder against the non applicant, the applicant appellant wants to avoid non applicant. It is also submitted that before applicant becoming lecturer, his behaviour was not bad but after that it became torturous for the non applicant. The learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the appellant-applicant never made any effort to keep the non applicant respondent with him. It is also submitted that today also the non applicant is prepared to go with the applicant without any reservation and, therefore, there is no question of non applicant’s living away from the applicant’s family without any cause. 10. I considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The applicant gave his statement in support of his allegation about the cruelty. He also produced the witness AW. 2 Hari Ram. The applicant is son of brother in law of said Hari Ram. He also stated that non applicant misbehaved, rather say, gave beating to the mother of the applicant and used to leave the house of the applicant without telling to any body. He also stated that non applicant stated that she will jump in the well alongwith her daughter. He also stated that non applicant is not coming to the house of the applicant because non applicant’s family members have big chunk of land. AW. 2 Hari Ram further stated that Panchayat was called and in the Panchayat it was decided that non applicant’s family members shall send the non applicant to applicant’s house. 12. AW. 3 Pura Ram also stated about the abnormal behaviour of non applicant but in his examination in chief itself , he has admitted that the non applicant’s mental condition was absolutely alright but she herself does not want to live with the non applicant nor her family members are willing to send the non applicant to the applicant. In cross examination, he stated that he is not aware whether non applicant’s mother and father are ready to send the non applicant to applicant’s house and he is not knowing whether the applicant is willing to keep the non applicant or not. AW. 3 is the maternal uncle of the applicant. In cross examination, he stated that he is not aware whether non applicant’s mother and father are ready to send the non applicant to applicant’s house and he is not knowing whether the applicant is willing to keep the non applicant or not. AW. 3 is the maternal uncle of the applicant. 13. Witnesses AW. 4 Dalu Ram, AW. 5 Cheta Ram and AW. 6 Sanwata Ram all supported the applicant but it appears from the evidence of the witnesses that so far as allegation of mental disorder of the non applicant is concerned, none of the witness supported the applicant. 14. The allegation of using foul language and giving beating to the applicant’s mother, the trial Court held that the applicant did not produce his mother who was the best witness. However, the allegations of misbehaviour were quite vague one. Therefore, if the Court below has not accepted their statement in support of applicant’s allegations about the cruelty, the Court below has not committed any error of fact looking to the vague allegation of misbehaviour in the statements of the witnesses of the applicant. 15. Another ground of divorce is desertion, in the divorce petition, the applicant pleaded that the non applicant left in the month of April, 1991 without informing any body. He tried to bring the non applicant back several times in the year 1991, when there was a meeting of some Panchas at the residence of the non applicant, the applicant immediately on getting the information, went to the non applicant’s house with his brother Chela Ram. He requested Panchayat to ask the non applicant to go to the house of the applicant. He stated that Panchayat directed the non applicant to go to the house of the applicant within ten days. This fact has not been denied specifically by the non applicant in her reply to the divorce petition. Be it as it may be, suggestion was put to the applicant in cross examination that whether before Panchayat of 1992, any pamphlets were distributed or not. The suggestion was given to the applicant in cross examination that Panchayat was called for settling the dispute between the applicant and the non applicant, for which the applicant stated that in fact that Panchayat was called for some family dispute of the non applicant and not for the applicant’s dispute. The suggestion was given to the applicant in cross examination that Panchayat was called for settling the dispute between the applicant and the non applicant, for which the applicant stated that in fact that Panchayat was called for some family dispute of the non applicant and not for the applicant’s dispute. It appears that this statement was misread by the Court below. The case of the applicant was that one meeting was going on for some family dispute of the non-applicant and the applicant, when got the information, he went there and requested the said Panchayat to ask the non applicant and her family members to send the non applicant to the house of the applicant. In cross examination, suggestion was given to the applicant that in fact Panchayat asked the applicant to take non applicant but the applicant did not take the non applicant with him. Even after giving such suggestion in evidence, the non applicant and her father denied holding of any Panchayat for settlement of the dispute between the applicant and the non applicant. From the above facts, it is proved that efforts were made by the applicant to bring the non applicant. The applicant’s witness AW. 5 stated that he himself was present in the Panchayat. AW. 2 Hari Ram also stated that the Panchayat was called and the Panchayat called the non applicant to go to the house of the applicant within 10 days. The trial Court, therefore, has committed serious error in holding that the non applicant is living away from the applicant for any valid reason. 15. The non applicant as well as her father in their statements, no where stated that any efforts they have made for settling the matter. It is not the duty of the only one of the parties to make the efforts for settlement of the dispute. From the evidence of the non applicant and her father, it appears that they accepted the position to keep the non applicant at her parent’s house. Assuming for the sake of arguments, even if the applicant at any point of time had any intention to send the non applicant to her parents house, then the non applicant accepted wish of her husband and she and her family members now want to blame the applicant. Assuming for the sake of arguments, even if the applicant at any point of time had any intention to send the non applicant to her parents house, then the non applicant accepted wish of her husband and she and her family members now want to blame the applicant. It appears that the non applicant herself reconciled with this situation and her offer that she is ready to live with her husband even after 20 year’s separation in a case where marriage took place about more than 30 years from today, I do not find this offer to be a reason for refusing the decree for divorce. The loss of 30 years cannot be compensated now by asking them to live together. 16. At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the applicant has one daughter of the age of 18 years. Therefore, in case the non applicant is entitled to any monetary benefit, for this purpose, she can certainly move an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the trial Court for appropriate order because of the reason that there is no evidence available on record before this Court to find out what is the family status of the parties and what should be the reasonable amount of maintenance to the non applicant under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 17. in view of the above, the appeal of the appellant is allowed and the Judgment of the trial Court dated 110.2000 is set aside. The finding of the trial Court on Issue No. 9 is set-aside and it is held that the non applicant deserted the applicant without any reasonable cause. The divorce petition is accordingly granted only on the ground of desertion and the marriage of the appellant and the respondent shall stand dissolved