JUDGMENT R.S.Madan, J. - The husband who had been unsuccessfully fighting litigation for the last about nine years for snapping his marital ties with the respondent -wife is the appellant before this court. He has impugned the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2002 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby his petition under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act filed against the respondent-wife, on the ground of cruelty and desertion was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the parties to the petition entered into nuptial-knot on 5.12.1993 at Jalandhar according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the solemnisation of the marriage, both the parties cohabited as husband and wife. Out of this wedlock, two children namely Chahal Arora and Anil Kumar were born on 29.7.1994 and 23.11.1998 respectively. It is further case of the appellant that right from the inception of the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent was very cruel and harsh towards him and his parents. She often used to insult and abuse him in front of his friends and relatives. Despite this, he had been tolerating the act of the respondent with a hope that better sense would prevail upon her with the passage of time and she would improve herself but to no effect. It was on 2.10.1997, the appellant took the respondent to attend the birthday party of his friend Ashwani Kumar Sharma and when they were taking meal all of a sudden the respondent without any reason started hurling abuses at the appellant and slapped him. She also threw her plate in the presence of other invitees, friends and relatives and degraded him in their eyes. She left the party without telling anybody where she is going. Later on she was found present at the house of her parents. The appellant requested her to return to the matrimonial house but she refused. Her mother and brother started abusing and beating the appellant. However, due to the intervention of the neighbours of her parents, he saved his life. She often refused to cook meal for him and his family members and also refused to entertain.. Due to the indifferent attitude of the respondent, the appellant suffered mental cruelty which has affected badly his health. On 10.8.1998, she left the matrimonial house with daughter and took with her all jewellery and other valuables. She often refused to cook meal for him and his family members and also refused to entertain.. Due to the indifferent attitude of the respondent, the appellant suffered mental cruelty which has affected badly his health. On 10.8.1998, she left the matrimonial house with daughter and took with her all jewellery and other valuables. Two/three attempts were made through panchayat to persuade the respondent but all in vain. Hence, the divorce petition was filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 3. Upon notice, the respondent-wife contested the divorce petition by filing written statement. She admitted the marriage and birth of the children. But denied all the allegations made in the petition. She also even denied the incident of 2.10.1997 throwing the plate on the appellant in the birthday party of his friend or abusing or insulting him. She, however, contended that it was the appellant who always used to create problem for her because he was not having good moral character. She submitted that on 30.7.1998, when she was collecting cloths of the appellant for washing, she found a letter written by the appellant to his beloved Kanchan. After reading the contents of the letter, it was evident that the appellant is not interested in her and after obtaining divorce from her, he wanted to marry with said Kanchan. She also averred that on 30.9.1998 she was badly treated and beaten by the appellant with cricket bat and she was at her advance stage of pregnancy of seven months at that time. She was saved by landlord Daljit Singh who informed his parents and thus she was forced to go with them. Since then she is living with her parents. 4. Replication was filed by the appellant and controverted the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the facts set out in the divorce petition. The trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPA 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for the period of more than 2 years without any reasonable and proper cause? OPA 3. Relief. 5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions raised in their pleadings. 6. The trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPA 2. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for the period of more than 2 years without any reasonable and proper cause? OPA 3. Relief. 5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions raised in their pleadings. 6. After due analysis and appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the trial court dismissed the petition vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.2002, holding that the appellant had failed to prove both the grounds i.e. cruelty and desertion on which the decree of divorce against the respondent was sought. He, thereafter, came up in appeal to this court. 7. Before this court embark upon the facts and circumstances of the case, it is important to note here that the parties had been summoned on various dates during the course of proceedings and intensive efforts were made to resolve the matter mutually between the parties. However, the efforts did not fructify and ultimately this court was left with no other option but to determine the controversy in this appeal. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully perused the trial court record. 9. It is a case where the husband-appellant has sought the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Before appreciating the facts and evidence led by the parties with respect to cruelty. It has to be seen whether the acts of cruelty have been condoned or not. This fact has to be pleaded in the petition as per requirement of Rule 16 (F) (6) of the Punjab High Court Rules, which is reproduced as under:- “6. Where the ground of petition is cruelty. The petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty.” 10. If the facts of the case as projected by the appellant in the petition are perused, it was essential for him to have averred therein that he has not in any manner condoned the acts of cruelty of the respondent. But no such averments are mentioned in the original petition. Therefore, this petition has to be examined in the absence of aforesaid averments. According to the averments made in the petition, it is not disputed that the parties entered into matrimonial ties on 5.12.1993 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Jalandhar. But no such averments are mentioned in the original petition. Therefore, this petition has to be examined in the absence of aforesaid averments. According to the averments made in the petition, it is not disputed that the parties entered into matrimonial ties on 5.12.1993 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Jalandhar. It is also not disputed that one daughter namely Chahal Arora was born on 29.7.1994 at Chawla Nursing Home, Jalandhar. While highlighting the act of cruelty, the appellant has averred that behaviour and attitude of the respondent from the inception of marriage was very cruel and harsh towards him and his family. About the incident dated 2.10.1997 when a birthday party was arranged at the house of his friend Ashwani Kumar Sharma, according to the appellant she abused, slapped and threw her plate on him and left the party without telling anybody where she is going, is another ground of cruelty pleaded by him. Though according to the averments made in the petition, the husband when went to the house of the respondent's parents, her mother and brother abused and gave beating to him in the presence of neighbours of the respondent's parents. However, after the incident dated 2.10.1997, it has further come on the record that the respondent gave birth to a male child on 23.11.1998. If the behaviour of the respondent in any case was cruel, the same was condoned by the acts of the appellant as they continued to cohabit the marriage upto 30.9.1998. 11. Despite of the indifferent attitude of the appellant, it was on 30.7.1998 when the respondent found a letter written by the appellant to his beloved Kanchan wherein it was averred that he (appellant) had the intention to marry her after obtaining divorce from the respondent. It was with this background that on 30.9.1998 when she was carrying a seven months pregnancy, she was beaten up by the appellant with cricket bat and turned out of the matrimonial house. The respondent had no other alternative except to take shelter at the house of her parents. Instead of making any effort to bring her back to the matrimonial home, the appellant choose to file the divorce petition on 24.10.1998. This sudden decision of the appellant to bring an end to the matrimonial ties shows his guilty mind. 12. The respondent had no other alternative except to take shelter at the house of her parents. Instead of making any effort to bring her back to the matrimonial home, the appellant choose to file the divorce petition on 24.10.1998. This sudden decision of the appellant to bring an end to the matrimonial ties shows his guilty mind. 12. The witnesses who appeared on behalf of the appellant, toe the path shown to them by him. Similarly, the respondent tried to highlight the relation of his husband with one Kanchan who belongs to South India with whom he wanted to marry and was impressing upon the respondent to give him the divorce. 13. Now coming to the other acts of cruelty of the respondent-wife. The allegation against her is that she has been forcing the appellant to live separately from his parents. This aspect was examined by the learned Additional District Judge while relying upon Smt. Shashi Shah vs Kiran Kumar Shah 1999 (2) Civil Court Cases 664 (Allahabad), wherein it has been held that mere pressure by wife on the husband to live separately from the parents is not a sufficient ground for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The act of cruelty has to be of such type which satisfies the conscience of the court to believe that the relations between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent, due to the conduct of one of the spouses, that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress. The appellant has not been able to prove on the record that due to the cruel acts of the respondent he has suffered physical/ mental harm. 14. Another argument raised by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent-wife has levelled false allegation against the husband of having love affair with one Kanchan with whom he wanted to marry and she has not even proved the letter found by her on 30.7.1998. This act of respondent amounts to cruelty. Therefore, he is entitled to decree of divorce. Although letter Ex.D1 has been placed on the record but not proved in terms of the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. But the contents of the letter raised finger against the appellant about his liking for Kanchan a South Indian girl. This act of respondent amounts to cruelty. Therefore, he is entitled to decree of divorce. Although letter Ex.D1 has been placed on the record but not proved in terms of the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. But the contents of the letter raised finger against the appellant about his liking for Kanchan a South Indian girl. This one stray incident in the matrimonial life cannot be termed as an act of cruelty to bring an end to the matrimonial ties. 15. Learned trial court while dealing with the question of desertion have relied upon the catena of judgments wherein it has been mentioned that there has to be an intention on the part of the deserting spouse to bring cohabitation permanently to an end without reasonable cause and without the consent of the other spouse. A decree of divorce cannot be granted to the husband merely on the ground that the wife has left the matrimonial home of her own will. Even if the wife has left the matrimonial home in a passion or anger, it would not mean desertion. In the instant case, the wife has not initiated any step against the husband which would prove that she had any intention to snap the ties between them. Reference can be taken from Arvinder Kaur vs Harjinder Singh 2007 (1) PLR 734, wherein this court has held that, “even if wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home or she left the matrimonial home in passion or anger, it would not amount to desertion. Moreover, the wife did not initiate any coercive action against the husband which would prove that she had any intention to snap the ties between them and forsaking the matrimonial home permanently.” 16. This court has to see the circumstances in which the wife has left the matrimonial home. It has come in the evidence that on 30.9.1998, she was badly beaten by the appellant with cricket bat when she was at the advanced stage of pregnancy of seven months. She had not left the matrimonial home of her own accord but she was forced to leave the house due to the cruel acts of the appellant on 30.9.1998. She was left with no other option but to seek shelter at the house of her parents with her minor children. She had not left the matrimonial home of her own accord but she was forced to leave the house due to the cruel acts of the appellant on 30.9.1998. She was left with no other option but to seek shelter at the house of her parents with her minor children. Instead of approaching the respondent-wife to return to the matrimonial home, the appellant opted to file the divorce petition on 24.10.1998 on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Another aspect which weighed in the mind of the trial court is that it is not possible for the respondent-wife to live separately at her parents' house with two school going minor children and to maintain them without any means. In Rajesh Kumar Madaan son of Dayal Chand Madaan (2005-2) 140 PLR 196, it was held by this court that, “even desertion in the facts and circumstances has also not been established. In order to obtain the matrimonial relief on the ground of desertion two essential considerations are required to be shown that is factum deserendi and animus deserendi that is the factum of separation and the intention to bring the cohabitation permanently to an end.” In fact, the respondent-wife was thrown out of the matrimonial home when she was pregnant. She gave birth to a child on 23.11.1998 and at that time she had no intention to bring an end to the matrimonial ties. It is also not a case of the appellant that there is misinterpretation of the evidence led by the parties by the trial court. However, it is a case where the testimony of the appellant is found suffering from exaggerations and embroidery. Thus, the circumstances manifest that the wife cannot be held guilty of desertion and cruelty for the reasons stated above. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal is held to be without merit and it is liable to be dismissed as such. Ordered accordingly.