Judgment: This appeal, preferred under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17-02-2000, passed by District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in original suit No. 17 of 1998, whereby a petition for divorce under Section 13 under said Act, filed by the petitioner, is dismissed. (There is no family court in Tehri till date). 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/petitioner, got married to respondent on 13-01-1973, according to Hindu rites and customs, in Village Siloli, Patti Dharmandal, District Tehri Garhwal. The petitioner used to do job in Punjab, as such, he left his wife (respondent) in company of his parents and brother in the aforesaid village. It is alleged in the plaint that during the absence of the petitioner, respondent used to quarrel with her in-laws. It is further alleged that she used to go to her parents house, without permission of in-laws. It is further pleaded in the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that the respondent wanted that her share be separated in the property by her in-laws. When her demand was not accepted, she left petitioner's parental and since then living in her parents house, deserting husband. 4. The respondent contested the petition and filed her written statement in which she admitted having married to petitioner/appellant, according to Hindu rites and customs. She further admitted that the petitioner was working in Punjab and she had to, live in her in-laws house in the village. It is pleaded by the respondent, in her written statement, that she was turned out of her in-laws house in the year 1990 and was compelled to live in her parents house where after she filed an application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C., for maintenance. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent, who deserted to him since 1990 without any just cause? If so, its effect? 2. To what-relief, if any, the petitioner (the appellant) is entitled? 6. P. C., for maintenance. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was treated with cruelty by the respondent, who deserted to him since 1990 without any just cause? If so, its effect? 2. To what-relief, if any, the petitioner (the appellant) is entitled? 6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the allegations made against the wife do not constitute the cruelty nor can it be said that she deserted her husband, as such, petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17-02-2000 by the trial court (District Judge, Tehri Garhwal). Hence this first appeal was filed before Allahabad High Court on 14-03-2000. The appeal is received by this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that respondent has admittedly deserted the petitioner since 1990, as such, the trial court has committed error of law in not allowing the petition for divorce. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the entire evidence recorded by the trial court. Had the petitioner and respondent been living together what the learned counsel for the petitioner argued could have been accepted but in the present case admittedly petitioner was living in Punjab leaving his wife in the village in Uttarkhand with her in-laws. As such mere factum that wife left-in-laws house in the year 1990, and started living in her parental house does not amount deserting the husband's company. It is nowhere pleaded in the plaint by the petitioner that he took his wife either to Punjab where they could have lived together or that he was living in the village to give company to his wife. What appears from the entire evidence on record is that the petitioner used to live in Punjab where he was doing his job and from there he used to come occasionally to his village. It is also established on the record that in-laws house and the parents house of the respondent was in the same village Siloli, Patti Dharmandal. As such, there is nothing unusual on the part of the wife to go frequently to her parents' house from her in-laws house. 8. It is also established on the record that in-laws house and the parents house of the respondent was in the same village Siloli, Patti Dharmandal. As such, there is nothing unusual on the part of the wife to go frequently to her parents' house from her in-laws house. 8. As far as the allegation of cruelty is concerned, I agree with the learned trial court that mere wife's going to parents' house by itself does not constitute cruelty against the petitioner particularly when he was not regularly living with his wife. The allegation that respondent used to quarrel with the parents of the petitioner and his brother; is not proved on record, as neither mother-in-law, nor father-in-law nor brother-in-law of the petitioner has entered into the witness box to state on oath that respondent used to quarrel with them without any reason. 9. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any error of law or that of fact, committed by the trial court in dismissing the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, moved by the petitioner (appellant) before the trial court. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.