JUDGMENT 1. - Although the petition filed by the appellant husband on the grounds of desertion and cruelty under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed the petition of respondent wife under section 9 seeking restitution of conjugal rights was allowed by the learned Family Court Ajmer. Against these findings that the husband appellant has preferred the instant appeals. 2. Contextual facts depict that marriage between the appellant husband and respondent wife took place on July 8, 1989. The parties lived together for sometime at Ajmer but thereafter their relationship had broken down. The contention of appellant husband was that it was respondent wife who acted with cruelty and deserted him whereas the respondent wife asserted that husband appellant used to beat her and father of appellant husband made attempt to outrage her modesty. 3. On the basis of pleadings of parties following issues were framed: (i) Whether according to facts of the petition behaviour of wife was cruel with the husband? (ii) Whether the wife had deserted the husband for two years and more without any justified reasons? (iii) Whether the husband is entitled for the decree of divorce, if yes, to what extent? (iv) Whether according to facts of petition No. 9/99 under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act the wife has been deserted, deprived from- conjugal rights by husband Without any justified reason? (v) Whether the wife is entitled for the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, if yes to what extent? (vi) Relief? 4. The appellant husband and respondent wife, each examined four witnesses in support of their pleadings. Thereafter on hearing final submissions learned Family Court while dismissing the petition of appellant husband, granted decree for conjugal rights in favour of respondent wife. 5. We have heard the submissions advanced before us and weighed the material on record. 6. It is contended that pedantic and artificial approach of learned Family Court cannot be sustained in matrimonial matters. Since the marriage had irretrievably broken down it was in the interest of both the parties to dissolve such a marriage by a decree of divorce. It is further urged that the desertion of appellant husband by the respondent wife was without reasonable cause and since the respondent wife made false and baseless allegations against the father of appellant husband in regard to his character and behaviour it amounted to cruelty to the appellant husband. It is further urged that the desertion of appellant husband by the respondent wife was without reasonable cause and since the respondent wife made false and baseless allegations against the father of appellant husband in regard to his character and behaviour it amounted to cruelty to the appellant husband. 7. Having closely scanned the statement of respondent wife we noticed that she made allegations against her father-in-law. She deposed thus:- " esjs llqj cSVjh dk dke djrs gSa mlus ,d jkr eq>s pwM+k igukus dh dksf'k'k dh eSaus euk dj fn;k------------ " This testimony could not be shattered in the cross examination. Even the father of appellant husband, against whom the respondent wife made allegations of outrage her modesty, was not examined as a witness to controvert the testimony of respondent wife. We, therefore, see no reason to discard uncontroverted statement of respondent wife. In such a situation where father-in-law of the respondent wife had an evil eye on her, it cannot be held that the respondent wife had deserted the appellant husband or treated him cruelty. 8. On analysing the evidence of parties we find that the allegations of the appellant that the respondent's behaviour with him was cruel and she deserted him appear to be untrustworthy and unreliable. The words "treated with cruelty" appearing in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 emphasis harsh conduct of certain intensity and persistence from the spouse against whom the petition for divorce is made and it does not take within its fold the cruel treatment meted out to the spouse howsoever close he or she may be to the respondent spouse unless there is evidence to warrant interference that he or she was cruel to the petitioner spouse at the behest of incitement of the respondent spouse. 9. 'Desertion' means intentional permanent abandonment of one spouse by other without the other' s consent and without reasonable cause. A deserting spouse has locus paenitentiae and can purge the consequences of such desertion by offering, to live with the spouse who has been deserted. In the instant matter in order to establish that the respondent had deserted the appellant, it was essential for the appellant to establish two conditions-(i) factum of separation and (ii) intention of respondent to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. In the instant matter in order to establish that the respondent had deserted the appellant, it was essential for the appellant to establish two conditions-(i) factum of separation and (ii) intention of respondent to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. Essence of desertion is abandonment of one spouse by the other for no good cause and so there can be no desertion by a wife who lives separately from her husband if in law she is entitled to do so. A petition for divorce on the ground of desertion, however, would be liable to be dismissed when the court holds that the party is not genuine and aggrieved and that the party failed to prove the ground on the basis of which the petition was presented. 10. In the instant case, we notice that it was the appellant husband, who himself sent the respondent wife with her brother and thereafter he made no good effort to live with the respondent wife. It is established from the evidence that the behaviour of respondent wife was not cruel with the appellant husband. 11. Matrimonial relationship demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to confirm to the social norms as well. 12. The appellant husband in the case on hand is himself responsible to shatter the trust of the respondent wife. The contention of the appellant husband that the respondent wife deserted him could not be established. On the contrary the respondent wife expressed her intention to live with the appellant husband that inspite of severe beatings by the appellant husband she did not lodge the report with the police. In such circumstances, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgments and decree of learned Family Court. 13. For these reasons we find no merit in the instant appeals and the same being devoid of merit stand accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******