JUDGMENT R.S. Madan, J.:-After the acceptance of petition of the husband-respondent by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.2002, filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife appellant has come to this court in appeal. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that parties to the petition entered into nuptial-knot on 6.12.1992 at Amber Hotel, Hoshiarpur, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the solemnisation of the marriage, the parties cohabited as husband and wife at Hoshiarpur and Jalandhar. Out of this wedlock, one female child, namely, Priyanka was born on 3.11.1993 at Jalandhar. It is alleged by the husband that right from the inception of the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant was very cruel and harsh and it had become impossible for him to live with her. The conduct of the wife has created bad impact on his mind and personality. Thus, he was unable to tolerate the torture and distress conduct of the appellant wife. It was also submitted by the respondent-husband that his mother-in-law is a widow lady. She is living in a Government quarter at Gandhi Vanita Ashram, Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar. She had four daughters. The appellant is the eldest. The younger sister of the appellant was married prior to their marriage but her husband named Lovely has absconded because of a criminal case registered against him. The appellant wife insisted to the respondent to live with her family and on his refusal to do so, she threatened him, his mother and other family members to implicate them in a criminal case. The appellant wife used to create tension in the family on this score and also threatened to commit suicide. She also used to strike her head against the wall in order to draw the attention of the neighbours. Once she ran on the road using abusive language against him, his mother, brother and married sister. The respondent-husband being eldest in the family had to bear the responsibility of the family after the death of his father as he had been given service as Senior Booking Clerk in the Railways on compassionate grounds. The entire family was dependent on the respondent. The respondent-husband being eldest in the family had to bear the responsibility of the family after the death of his father as he had been given service as Senior Booking Clerk in the Railways on compassionate grounds. The entire family was dependent on the respondent. In the meanwhile, the appellant became pregnant and the respondent thought it proper to live at her Quarter No.240-A, Railway Colony, Jalandhar, but the same had been let out by her to some person illegally and she herself started living at her mother’s house. The attitude of her mother was not proper. As and when he visited her house, the appellant and her mother used to administer Taveez to the respondent to create hatred in his mind against his parents. Many a time the respondent requested her to resist from her acts but to no effect. It was some time back that she has levelled allegations against him and threatened to get him dismissed from service. She refused to live with the respondent at Hoshiarpur in the matrimonial home and to perform the matrimonial obligations. She filed a complaint against the respondent in Mahila Mandal, Desh Bhagat Yadgar Hall, Jalandhar, in which the allegations of demand of dowry were levelled against him and his family members. She also filed a criminal complaint against the respondent, his mother, brother and married sister on 13.2.1997 as a counter-blast to the divorce petition. Number of efforts were made by the trial court and even by the Lok Adalat to bring reconciliation between the parties but all the efforts proved futile. He has also pleaded that they lived together for a period of less than two years after the marriage and thereafter, they have been living separately from each other for more than eight years. The marriage between the parties is virtually dead and chances of its revival are quite bleak. Due to the acts of the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband has suffered mental cruelty. Thus, he sought a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 3. Upon notice, the wife filed written statement controverting the pleadings of the husband. She admitted the factum of marriage. However, it was pleaded that demands of her husband and his family members were fulfilled by her parents. Even the entire hospital expenses at the time of birth of female child were borne by her. 3. Upon notice, the wife filed written statement controverting the pleadings of the husband. She admitted the factum of marriage. However, it was pleaded that demands of her husband and his family members were fulfilled by her parents. Even the entire hospital expenses at the time of birth of female child were borne by her. She also pleaded that even on the date of filing of the petition for divorce, the respondent was living with her in the railway colony, Jalandhar. The mother of the respondent had received all service benefits of her husband and was getting pension from the Railway Department. His brother was working in Mahavir Spinning Mills, whereas his other brother was plying taxi. The respondent and the appellant were living in Quarter No.240-A, Railway Colony, Jalandhar. When she was on family way, she at the instance of the respondent shifted to her mother for delivery. The respondent never came to the appellant in her mother’s house after she shifted there for delivery. But after the filing of the petition, the respondent had been coming and living with the appellant in House No.240-A, Railway Colony, Jalandhar. After the receipt of notice, he stopped coming to her. However, they had been meeting each other in the office. She also alleged that he and his family members have misappropriated her Istri Dhan and have been making demands of fridge, Maruti car, air conditioner etc. As and when the court made efforts for reconciliation, she always offered to live with him but he had always refused to rehabilitate her. With these averments, she prayed that the petition may kindly be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent has caused mental cruelty to the petitioner as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of more than two years as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the respondent is entitled to the special costs? If so, to what amount? OPR 5. Relief. 5. After due analysis and appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the trial court recorded the findings on issue no.1 against the husband. OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the respondent is entitled to the special costs? If so, to what amount? OPR 5. Relief. 5. After due analysis and appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the trial court recorded the findings on issue no.1 against the husband. While disposing of issue no.2, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the appellant-wife has deserted the respondent-husband as she refused to return to the matrimonial house with him at Hoshiarpur and granted the decree of divorce to the husband on the ground of desertion. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court, the wife has now impugned the same by filing the present appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record. 8. The facts in the instant case are not disputed. The parties have accepted the averments of marriage as well as of the birth of female child. Both are posted in the Railway Department. As per the averments made in the petition, both lived together for less than two years as husband and wife. However, after the birth of the daughter, the wife did not visit Hoshiarpur and continued to live at Jalandhar at her place of posting. It is also not disputed that the husband is living with his family members at Hoshiarpur and because of the death of his father he was given compassionate appointment by the Railways. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that parties have been allotted government accommodation at Jalandhar. But the wife is living in the accommodation at Jalandhar with her mother and a small child. Due to tender age of the child, she could not shift to Hoshiarpur because it was very difficult for her to bring up the child who was looked after by her mother. It has also come on the record that during the pendency of the petition, parties used to meet each other in the office and some times at the house of mother of the appellant. 10. In so far as the acts of cruelty levelled against the appellant-wife are concerned, the same did not find favour with the respondent husband and the findings in this regard were returned by the trial court in her favour. 11. 10. In so far as the acts of cruelty levelled against the appellant-wife are concerned, the same did not find favour with the respondent husband and the findings in this regard were returned by the trial court in her favour. 11. It is a case where the trial court also made several efforts to bring reconciliation between the parties despite the fact that it had granted numerous adjournments but they did not return to the matrimonial life. Even in this court, efforts were made to bring reconciliation between the parties but the same were ended in fiasco. 12. Now coming to the ground of desertion on which divorce was granted to the husband- respondent. It is not disputed that criminal proceedings between the parties are pending. The parties are living separately from each other for the last about 12 years but at the time of filing the petition before the trial court they were living separately for a period of 8 years. Two essential conditions must exists to establish the ground of desertion, namely, (i) the factum of separation, and (ii) the intention to bring co-habitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned (i) the absence of consent, and (ii) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. 13. The petition for divorce was filed on 12.3.1997 and a period of more than ten years has elapsed. None of the parties are interested to return to the matrimonial fold. This court has to see the conduct of the parties which is essential for the purpose of determining the question of desertion. The allegation of the wife that the family members of the husband are demanding more dowry as well as scooter and a Maruti car, are not proved on the record. In these days when the prices of essential commodities are touching sky, it is very difficult for an official of the rank of Assistant in the Railways to maintain himself, what to talk of a car. Even dreaming for it, is not possible when the respondent-husband is burdened with responsibilities of family members. 14. In these days when the prices of essential commodities are touching sky, it is very difficult for an official of the rank of Assistant in the Railways to maintain himself, what to talk of a car. Even dreaming for it, is not possible when the respondent-husband is burdened with responsibilities of family members. 14. The trial court has rightly relied upon Rajwanti vs Inder Raj, 1989 (1) Hindu Law Reporter 261, wherein it was held by this court that where the parties have been living separately for the last more than eight years and there are no chance of reconciliation, it is better to close the chapter as the same is in the interest of both the parties so that they are saved from wasting rest of their life in litigation. In the instant case, the parties are living separately for the last more than 10 years and there are no chances of reconciliation. No evidence has come on record to suggest that the appellant-wife has ever made any efforts to return to the matrimonial home. In other words, the inference has to be drawn that the wife has caused the factum of separation with an intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. Thus, the findings by the trial court on issue no.2 has been rightly recorded that the wife has deserted the husband. No other point was urged. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs. 29.11.2007. ——————————