JUDGMENT Kumar, J This appeal is by the wife challenging the judgment and order passed by the Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce. 2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the family Court. 3. Petitioner-wife presented a petition under Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. The case of the petitioner is she married the respondent in the year 1986 in accordance with Hindu rites at Hole Alurtown, Gadag; after marriage they led a happy marital life for one year since she was serving as nurse in Bijapur Govt. Hospital. Respondent was a permanent resident of Betegeri; he used to visit her to consummate their marriage; out of the wedlock, she delivered a male child namely Prahalad on 4.1.1988; the delivery was not normal and her health was not congenial for which she was taking treatment; unfortunately 12 days after the child was born, respondent's father died; respondent insisted that the petitioner should attend the funeral, but she was unable to do on health grounds. This is how ill-will between the parties commenced. Thereafter the respondent did not come to any understanding with the petitioner to perform his marital obligations; he did not care for her and started living a disturbed, shabby and senseless life. From that day onwards, they lived separately. He has treated the petitioner with cruelty and deserted her for 18 years. Therefore, she preferred the petition for divorce. 4. After service of notice, respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections admitting their marriage, birth of child and that they were living separately, but denied he forced her to attend his father's funeral. He did not know any work except that of a cob lie and stayed at Betegeri; when the petitioner persuaded him to come to Bijapur on the pretext that her mother and uncle had promised to find him a job, respondent stayed for. about 2 weeks; petitioner's uncle took him for 2-3 days to find a job, but gave up his efforts; thereafter the mother and uncle of the petitioner started humiliating him; therefore he came back to Betegeri and requested the petitioner to meet him regularly in that place, but she did not heed to his request. about 2 weeks; petitioner's uncle took him for 2-3 days to find a job, but gave up his efforts; thereafter the mother and uncle of the petitioner started humiliating him; therefore he came back to Betegeri and requested the petitioner to meet him regularly in that place, but she did not heed to his request. This attitude kept going for some time and he started understanding reality. In fact he is ready and willing to live with her; even now to meet his son, he goes to the petitioner's house, but she treats him cruelly; he has neither demanded money nor deserted her. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. The petitioner examined herself as PWI. The respondent got himself examined as RW1. No documents were produced on either side. The family Court, on consideration of the aforesaid material, raised the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent had deserted her company? 2) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent subjected her to cruelty? 3) What order? 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the family Court held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent had deserted her company and also that he had treated her cruelly and therefore, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by such judgment and order, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment of the family Court, contended that the couple have been living separately for the past 18 years; their son who is now aged 20 years is completely being educated by the mother and is studying engineering course; No love is lost between the parties; the marriage is completely broken. Relying on the judgments of the Apex Court, he submitted very separation for 18 years is sufficient to hold cruelty as understood in criminal law is established and the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce. Even otherwise, respondent is admittedly living separately and it is he who left the petitioner. He has not only deserted her without any just cause, he has not even bothered to take care of the petitioner and her son. In that view of the matter, a case of desertion is also made out. 8. Even otherwise, respondent is admittedly living separately and it is he who left the petitioner. He has not only deserted her without any just cause, he has not even bothered to take care of the petitioner and her son. In that view of the matter, a case of desertion is also made out. 8. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned order, submits the petitioner has not produced any evidence to substantiate the plea of desertion and cruelty. On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that the respondent is visiting her frequently and there is no separation at all and absolutely no material is produced to prove the act of cruelty; as such the impugned order does not call for interference. 9. The material on record discloses the petitioner was employed as staff nurse in the year 1983 much prior to her marriage. The respondent has studied only up to IV Standard. He is working as a worker in a cotton mill. In 1986, their marriage took place according to Hindu rites governing the parties. On 4.1.1988 a male child is born who is named as Prahalad. Unfortunately on the 12th day after his birth, respondent's father died: According to the petitioner, it was not normal delivery and she was unable to attend the funeral which the respondent insisted. That is how ill-will started between the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner resides in Bijapur with her mother, uncle and son, whereas the respondent resides at Betegeri and used to visit her. An attempt was also made to secure a job to him, but it did not fructify. According to him, petitioner started humiliating and ill-treating which forced him to quit the house at Bijapur. Except the oral assertion on the part of the respondent in this regard, there is no other material to substantiate the contention that he withdrew from the company of the wife because of humiliation meted out by her. But the fact remains, he withdrew from her company from 1989-90. Though it is contended he was frequently visiting his wife and son, there is no material to substantiate the said contention. But the fact remains, he withdrew from her company from 1989-90. Though it is contended he was frequently visiting his wife and son, there is no material to substantiate the said contention. On the contrary, it is the petitioner's version that the respondent was only interested in her salary than herself; he married her having an eye on her salary; for the first 4- 5 years after marriage, she used to hand over her salary to him, but since he did not handle the responsibility of taking care of the family, she had to stop the said practice. The material on record also discloses that there was some force used which, of course, is not supported by evidence. 10. The fact remains, thereafter they have been living separately. Meanwhile, the child was admitted to school. He appears to be a bright student, having scored 74% in SSLC and is now studying engineering course. The very fact that the respondent pleads complete ignorance about the course his son is studying shows he did not even care about him. There is nothing on record to show he has met the expenses of his son's education. Likewise there is no record to show he bothered to take care of his wife for the last 18 years. Because of the salary which the petitioner was drawing by virtue of her employment, she was able to lead a decent life, give good education to her son, though her husband deserted her. It is in this background having waited sufficiently, she decided to put an end to this agony and hence, preferred this petition for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. 11. 'Cruelty' in this context does not mean physical assault or injury to the person of the petitioner; the cruelty she is complaining of is total desertion for 18 years and a life of total neglect without love and affection. In the context of criminal jurisprudence, 'cruelty' had a different meaning altogether. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ROMESH CHANDER vs. SAVITRI , relying on the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in V. BHAGAT vs. D. BHAGAT (Mrs.) and CHANDERKALA TRIVEDI (Smt.) vs. Dr. S.P. TRIVEDI has held thus: 'If the marriage was dead and there was no chance of it being retrieved, it was better to bring it to an end. S.P. TRIVEDI has held thus: 'If the marriage was dead and there was no chance of it being retrieved, it was better to bring it to an end. In this case, the marriage is dead both emotionally and practically. Continuance of marital alliance for name-sake is prolonging the agony and affliction. It cannot be disputed that the husband has not been dutiful and conscious of his responsibilities either towards his wife or his son. He did not contribute anything towards upbringing of the child. Yet the marriage being dead, the continuance of it would be cruelty, specially when the child born out of the wedlock of the appellant and the respondent as far back as 1968 having now grown and being in service.' Again the Hon'b1e Supreme Court following the aforesaid judgment in the case reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5190 has affirmed the said legal position. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. In the instant case also, the respondent has not contributed anything towards the upbringing of the child and has not cared for his wife; the marriage is dead both emotionally and practically. Unfortunately, it is the wife who is seeking divorce; she is not seeking any compensation from the husband; all that she wants is to put an end to the terrible mental agony she is undergoing for so many years. 12. The material on record clearly establishes that the marriage is irretrievably broken. Attempts in reconciliation were not successful. Having regard to past experience and material on record, it would be a futile exercise to make any further attempt of reconciliation. The material on record clearly discloses it is the respondent who withdrew from the company of the petitioner without just and sufficient cause. Virtually he has abandoned his wife and son and has failed to perform matrimonial obligations towards his wife and parental obligation towards his son who is now aged 20 years. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that a case for divorce is made out. 13. Unfortunately, the Trial Court has dealt with this matter like a civil suit, insisting on adherence to strict rules and evidence to support the said plea and has proceeded to find out whether the conduct of the respondent was harmful and injurious to the petitioner vis-a-vis bodily injury. This is how it has misdirected itself in approaching the issue of cruelty. This is how it has misdirected itself in approaching the issue of cruelty. It has given much importance to humiliation and insult as put forth by the respondent and has come to the conclusion that it is not proved by any acceptable evidence. Merely because at some point the parties visited each other, it has reached the conclusion that there is no ill-treatment. It finds fault with the petitioner in not explaining the manner in which she was being treated. It has recorded a finding that she has failed to prove the allegation of cruelty. 14. As stated above, the Learned Judge has not kept in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions which squarely applies to the facts of the case and has misguided himself on material facts resulting in miscarriage of justice. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment has to be interfered with. 15. In the result, we pass the following order: The appeal is allowed. The petition for divorce filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act is allowed. The marriage between the husband and wife i.e. respondent and petitioner respectively is dissolved by the decree of divorce. Parties to bear their own costs.