JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the husband, against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge No.2, Chittorgarh dated 16.9.2003, dismissing the appellant's petition for dissolution of marriage, filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The petition was filed on 6.8.2002, alleging interalia that the parties were married some 12-13 years ago, and lived as husband and wife. It was then alleged that the behavior of the wife was not good qua the appellant and his family members, she always used to quarrel, and used to go anywhere on her own free will without informing, and on being asked, she used to threaten the husband with committing suicide. Thus, the whole life of the appellant was reduced to a hell. Then in para 5 it is alleged, that in 1994, the father and brother of the respondent came to see her, and at that time, they committed theft of certain valuables, as detailed therein, for which a First Report was lodged in the Police Station Kapasan, and registered notice was also given, but then after 1994, the wife did not return to Kapasan, nor rehabilitated the matrimonial home. Thus she has deserted the matrimonial home, for last two years, without any reason. It is then alleged, that the appellant, his father, friends and relatives, went any number of times to fetch her, but she did not come, rather whosoever went, was misbehaved, and was given physical beating by the respondent, her father and brothers. It was alleged that the family members of the respondent want to give her away in Nata somewhere else. It was also alleged that the respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the Court of A.C.J.M., Shahpura, being case No.54/97, which was decided on 27.10.98, and according to that, the respondent is recovering the maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month from him. Thus, it was pleaded that it is not possible for the parties to live together, and decree for dissolution of marriage was prayed for. 3. The wife contested the petition. Paras No.1, 2 and 3 of the petition were admitted. However, the pleadings contained in para 4, relating to cruelty were denied. Thus, it was pleaded that it is not possible for the parties to live together, and decree for dissolution of marriage was prayed for. 3. The wife contested the petition. Paras No.1, 2 and 3 of the petition were admitted. However, the pleadings contained in para 4, relating to cruelty were denied. It was pleaded that she never went anywhere of her own free will, nor ever gave any threatening of suicide, rather it is the husband, who has reduced her life to a hell, inasmuch as, off and on he picks up quarrels with the respondent, and gives physical beating, and turns out of the house. In reply to para 5 it is pleaded, that no valuables were taken away, rather the appellant instituted a false case, whereupon finding the case to be false, a final report was submitted. It was also pleaded, that the appellant initiated various false cases, but none of them proceeded ahead, and that, he had been initiating such false cases simply to harass the respondent, and her family members. The allegation of desertion was denied. It was pleaded, that nobody came to fetch her. Then in additional pleas it was pleaded, that the appellant never behaved well with her, rather he has been harassing her, and her family members, by initiating false cases after cases, and wants to contact another marriage after getting rid of the present matrimony. 4. Learned trial Court framed 3 issues. Issue No.1 related to cruelty, then issue No.2 related to desertion, and issue No.3 was about relief. 5. Some 6 witnesses were examined on the side of the appellant, including the appellant himself, while 3 witnesses were examined on the side of the respondent, including herself, be filing their affidavits, on which all the witnesses were ofcourse cross examined. The appellant also produced various documents, out of which Ex.1 to 7 are the receipt of certain payments of maintenance made by him. Then Ex.8 is the notice dated 5.10.94, given on the side of the appellant, to the respondent, calling upon the addressees to return the valuables, and cash, also intimating the factum of lodging the First Report, and intimating, that the Police is coming to recover the articles. Then Ex.9 is produced, being the letter addressed on the side of the respondent's family. Then Ex.9 is produced, being the letter addressed on the side of the respondent's family. Then Ex.10 is First Information Report dated 4.10.94, lodged by the appellant, against the respondent and 5 other family members, alleging about the theft of the valuables and cash. Then Ex.11 is the copy of certain order-sheet dated 24.9.2002, about certain criminal case, instituted by the appellant, against the respondent and her family members, for the incident of 14.4.2000, for which cognizance was taken for offences under Section 143 and 504 IPC. Then Ex.12 & 14 and 13 & 15 are the letter written by the respondent to the appellant, and envelops thereof respectively.Then Ex.16 is the notice of the A.C.J.M. Court, enclosing therewith the application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. 6. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, deciding issue No.1, found, that it is not established from the material on record, that the behavior of the respondent was cruel with the appellant, and that some small disputes in the nature of normal wear and tear of the matrimonial life, cannot be described as a cruelty. Then deciding issue No.2 it was found, that it is not established that the wife has deliberately deserted the matrimonial home since 1994. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, the learned counsel took me to the entire material on record, and submitted, that it is clearly established on record, that right from the beginning, the behavior of the wife had been cruel, day in and day out she used to pick up the quarrels, and move out of the house without even asking as and when she would like, and that, at times she had night outs, and on being asked she gave threatening to commit suicide, and thus it is clear that the behavior of the wife qua the appellant and his family members was consistently cruel. It was submitted that the learned Court below has negatived the issue, simply on the ground, that the appellant has not given details, as to on what date and which month she quarreled, or gave threatening for committing suicide. While in the matrimonial life, it is not expected of the petitioning spouse to keep a complete record of the events, date-wise and time-wise, so as to be entitled to success in the stand. While in the matrimonial life, it is not expected of the petitioning spouse to keep a complete record of the events, date-wise and time-wise, so as to be entitled to success in the stand. It was also submitted that all the witnesses produced on the side of the appellant have clearly proved, that the respondent used to pick up quarrels day in and day out, and used to threaten with committing suicide, when she was stopped from going out without asking. Thus, it was submitted that the finding is liable to be set aside. 8. Then assailing the finding on issue No.2 it was submitted, that it is not in dispute between the parties that the wife had left the matrimonial home in the year 1994, and did not turn up thereafter. Not only this it is also clearly established on record, that time and again the appellant and his relations and friends went to fetch her, still not only she did not come, rather the person so going were misbehaved with, and were physically beaten. This coupled with the fact, that no reasonable or justifiable cause has been shown on the side of the respondent to live separately, and to decline to rehabilitate the matrimonial home, therefor the ground of desertion is clearly established. It was submitted, that it is too much for the husband, that he should suffer such a disgrace, rather get physically manhandled at the hand of the in laws, if he goes to fetch her, and still the ground of desertion could not be found, as done by the learned trial Court. It was submitted, that the learned trial Court has negatived the ground of desertion by observing, that the appellant has alleged in the application, that she is living separately since 1994 without any justifiable cause, while according to the respondent, she always was, and is, ready to live in the matrimonial home. It has been observed, that evidence has come on record, to the effect, that the couple has a son, which according to the respondent is born of the lions of the appellant, while the appellant alleges him to be an illegitimate child. But then, from the material on record it is not established, that wife is deliberately ignoring the husband. It has been observed, that evidence has come on record, to the effect, that the couple has a son, which according to the respondent is born of the lions of the appellant, while the appellant alleges him to be an illegitimate child. But then, from the material on record it is not established, that wife is deliberately ignoring the husband. Then relying upon the judgment in Beena @ Mota's case, reported in AIR 1964 SC 40 , it has been considered, that to make a ground of divorce, there should be animus to permanently bring to an end the conjugal relations, and with such motive the wife has deserted. While it is not established from the evidence, that she has left the matrimonial home with such intention. According to the learned counsel, on the evidence on record this finding is clearly unsustainable. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relying upon certain portions of the appellant's evidence, so also of the respondent's evidence as well, has supported the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 10. I have gone through the judgment and record. 11. It is informed by learned counsel for the appellant that the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 17.2.1990, and the son was born on 19.9.1992. Though these facts have not come on record otherwise, however, I do not find any serious ground not to accept these two dates. 12. In this background, taking up the ground of cruelty first, as observed above, the divorce petition has been filed as late as on 6.8.2002, and as appears from a reading of Ex.10, being the First Information Report, lodged by the appellant on 4.10.2002, that there was some death in his family, and he was observing condolence, and at that time, it was on 1.9.2004, that all the accused persons came and took away accused No.6, giving out, that she would be returned after few days. Then it is alleged that on 2.10.2004, in the night, his father asked him to gave him Rs.10,500/- from out of the trunk, as the amount is to be deposited in Hingoria school next day, whereupon he looked the trunk, and did not find the money, rather other ornaments, as detailed in para 4 of the complaint, were also not found. Then it is alleged, that the respondent has also not been sent back. Then it is alleged, that the respondent has also not been sent back. Thus, it was alleged, that she is also participis criciminis and thus, report was lodged under Section 380 and 420 I.P.C. Though the date, when she left the matrimonial home is not pleaded in the divorce petition, but then, as I get from this Ex.10, that even according to the appellant the wife had left the matrimonial home on 1.9.94. 13. With this, a look at Ex.8, which is a notice dated 5.10.94, given on the side of the appellant to the respondent and her family members does show, that it is alleged therein that the respondent is his married wife, who is supposed to live with him with social formalities but she has come under the influence of the parents and wants to Nata elsewhere, and then on 1.9.94 by practicing deception she was taken away, and ornaments and valuables were also stolen away, for which a report has been lodged in the Police Station. Then it is alleged that the addressees want to kill his son, and therefore, he has retained the son with him. It is then alleged that the respondent wants to live a free lancer's life, which is not proper. It is also alleged that the respondent has behaved cruelly with the son, therefore, the child has to be retained by him, and that the addressees have lodged a false cases in Bhilwara court. It was also pleaded therein that the addressees do not want to keep the child, and therefore, the child was left with him on 1.9.94, and application has been filed in the Court for custody of the child, by making false allegations. Thus it was expressed that the appellant has lost confidence in the addressees, and for the safety of the life of the child, it is necessary that he lives with the appellant, and the addressees have taken away the valuables as they want to give the respondent in Nata. With these averments, the addressees were called upon, only to return the valuables and the money. Thus, this much is clear, that the dispute started since 1.9.94. It is in this sequence, that in the divorce petition no details have been given, as to how the behavior was cruel, and its frequency. With these averments, the addressees were called upon, only to return the valuables and the money. Thus, this much is clear, that the dispute started since 1.9.94. It is in this sequence, that in the divorce petition no details have been given, as to how the behavior was cruel, and its frequency. Of course the day and time may not have been given, but the allegation is as vague as it could be. The entire allegation in this regard is contained only in para 4. True it is, that the learned trial Court has found that details have not been given out as to when the quarrel was picked up, and the threatening of suicide was given, and the appellant has shown the inability to give the same. But then Ex.8 is a million dollar document, which is as old as 5.10.94, i.e. of a date soon after the respondent left the matrimonial home, and in that notice, there is not even a whisper about the respondent being used to pick up any quarrel, or having ever given any threatening to commit suicide, or her off and on going away from the matrimonial home without intimation, or about giving threatening to commit suicide on being stopped. Very many things have been alleged in this Ex.8, as to how she was taken away, with what motive she was taken away, and how the other offences have been committed, then much concern has been shown about the safety, security, and well being of the son, and his having been retained by the appellant, only for the considerations of the safety, security and wellbeing of the son, despite this, there is not even a whisper about any cruel behavior of the wife qua the appellant or his family members, rather the only motive pleaded is, that the family members of the respondent want to give her away in Nata somewhere else, and on their persuasion she also wants to go in Nata somewhere else, and therefore, he apprehends that the addressees would kill the son, and for that reason he was detained by him. It may be noticed here, that admittedly the parties were on litigating terms since then, and it is not shown that any favourable out come was there on the first report Ex.10. It may be noticed here, that admittedly the parties were on litigating terms since then, and it is not shown that any favourable out come was there on the first report Ex.10. Then admittedly the wife had initiated proceedings under Section 125, wherein order of maintenance was passed, and for its enforcement, proceedings were taken, and the money was recovered, as appears from Ex.16. Then Ex.11 is another document to show, that the parties are on litigating terms, inasmuch as, this is the order dated 24.9.2002, relating to some incident of 14.4.2000; in such circumstances, it is well nigh possible, that during the long interval of about 8 years, the grounds of divorce may have been weeded out about cruelty, and her going away without asking. In this very sequence, it may also be noticed here, that on the other hand, unnecessary, wild and baseless suggestions had been put in cross-examination to the respondent even regarding facts which have not been pleaded or deposed on the side of the appellant. Then regarding cruel behavior also, no material could be elicited from her cross-examination. She has denied to have ever misbehaved with the appellant. She had also deposed to have not gone any where on her own will, nor did she ever gave any threatening about her committing suicide. Then she has also deposed that in the criminal case, final report has been given, and in other criminal case also, nothing came out and they did not proceed further, on which aspect there is no cross-examination. Thus, leaving apart the aspect of not pleading the date, and time, or the period of act of cruelty, even considering the entire material on record, and appreciating the totality of circumstances, in my view, it cannot be said, that the ultimate decision of the learned trial Court on issue No.1 requires any interference in this appeal. 14. Then coming to issue No.2, in this regard the pleadings are contained in para 5, 6 and 7. In para 5 basically the allegation is about the respondent and her family members having committed theft of the articles and cash, as pleaded, and it is pleaded that after 1994 she did not come to restore the matrimonial home. Then in para 6 it is pleaded, that she has deserted the matrimonial home without any cause, for more than 2 years. Then in para 6 it is pleaded, that she has deserted the matrimonial home without any cause, for more than 2 years. Then in para 7, it is pleaded, that time and again the appellant, his father, friends and other relatives went, but she did not come, rather they were misbehaved, and were given physical beating. The respondent in the reply, as observed above, has denied this averment, pleading, that the wife did not desert the matrimonial home, and that nobody came to fetch her. 15. As observed above, it cannot be said to be in dispute, that the wife is away from the matrimonial home since 1.9.1994, though the averment in para 5 of the petition have been denied, and those in para 6 and 7 have also been denied, but it has not been denied, that she is away from the matrimonial home since 1994. In that background, the appellant as A.W.1 has also deposed in the affidavit, that the respondent did not come and rehabilitated the matrimonial home after 1994, and has deserted without any cause, rather the appellant has repeated the averments made in the corresponding paras of the divorce petition in para 2, 3 and 4 of the affidavit. Then in cross-examination, he has gone to the extent of deposing, that he is not aware, as to when the child was born, and that the respondent and her family members never brought the child to his house. He has denied to have abducted the child, and is facing case at Bhilwara, rather there is no litigation about the child in Bhilwara Court. Then in next breath, he has admitted, that the Court has ordered the child to be delivered to the respondent. Then a specific question was put to him, that the respondent is still prepared to live with him, and the answer given was, that he does not know, as to whether she wants to live with him or not. Thus, this much is clear, that regarding the averment made in the affidavit, about he and his family members and relatives having gone and the parents having not sent her with them, and having misbehaved with them, there is no cross-examination. Thus, this much is clear, that regarding the averment made in the affidavit, about he and his family members and relatives having gone and the parents having not sent her with them, and having misbehaved with them, there is no cross-examination. However, a look at the cross-examination of A.W.2, who has deposed in his affidavit about his having gone to fetch her shows, that only threatening was given about beating, and no beating was given, nor any abuses were hurled, nor report was ever lodged about any such incident. Then so far A.W.3 is concerned, he has been produced mainly for the purpose of deposing, that the respondent had nighted out at the house of a Jat, at Kesar Khedi. Then A.W.4 is the father of the appellant, and he has deposed that he cannot depose regarding the respondent being ready to live with the appellant. Thus, it does appear, that efforts are deposed to have been made on the side of the appellant to fetch her, but she did not come. However, no details are given, as to when, the persons deposing about it went. However I need not dilate much on this aspect at this stage, for the simple reason of the requirement of the section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which reads as under:- "S.13(1) (i-b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or..." 16. Thus, all previous efforts, even if made, are not of any relevance, and the relevant period to be considered is, the period of two years, immediately preceding 6.8.2002, being the date of presentation of the petition, and if considered from that standpoint, Ex.11 is the deadly blow to the appellant's case, inasmuch as, a reading of Ex.11 shows, that the appellant had lodged the private complaint against the respondent and her family members, alleging that even without his cohabitation, a son was born, and therefore, he doesn't want to keep her as a wife. With this, it is alleged that on 14.4.2000, at 5 PM, all the accused persons came to his house in a jeep, with the respondent, telling that the respondent is his wife and he should keep her, and that the son is also his, and therefore, he has also to be kept, whereupon the appellant gave out, that the son is illegitimate child, therefore, he cannot keep him. On this all the accused persons got annoyed, and hurled abuses, and threatened. On this complaint, cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 143 and 504 IPC. Thus, from this it is clear, that at least on 14.4.2000, the wife alongwith his family members had come to rehabilitate the matrimonial home, alongwith the son, but she was not allowed to rehabilitate, on the pretext, that the son is an illegitimate child, therefore, she cannot be kept. As against this, as noticed above, a look at the Ex.8 shows, that therein the appellant had clearly owned the son, showed a great amount of concern about life, safety, security and wellbeing of the son, and alleged to have himself retained the child, apprehending 16 that the respondent and her family members would kill him. Thus, if these two documents are read together, they leave no manner of doubt, that within the relevant period, it was the appellant, who had prevented the respondent from rehabilitating the matrimonial home, on the false pretext, about the son being an illegitimate child. In these circumstances, in my view, in addition to the reasons given by the learned trial Court, for the above reasons as well, I do not find any ground to interfere with the ultimate conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court on issue No.2 either. 17. The appeal is thus, devoid of any merit and is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.Appeal dismissed. *******