Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.6,2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Bathinda allowing petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) filed by the respondent/husband, 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 26.7.1988 at Fazilka The parties resided and cohabited together as husband and wife at Muktsar up to 7.2.1989. One son namely Aman was born out of the wed-lick. Son is residing with the appellant/wife. The appellant was in service as a teacher at the time of solemnization of marriage. The case set up by the respondent/husband was that the respondent did not take charge of the household affairs. Rather she refused to own the responsibility of household. It was also the case of the respondent/husband that the appellant was treated with great love and affection by the family members of the respondent/husband but she did not reciprocate in the same terms. She was alleged to have misbehaved with the parents of the respondent/husband. She also did not respond to the cordiality of his younger sister who was unmarried and was residing with the respondent/husband. It was alleged that the acts of the wife constituted cruelty, 3. It was also pleaded that in November, 1988 when Pawan Kumar visited the house of the petitioner in a routine manner to meet him, she refused to serve refreshment to him and behaved in unwarranted manner before him who left the house unattended. He was not produced to support this assertion. 4. The appellant/wife is also said to have maltreated the husband/respondent when Kishan Singh Dabra uncle of the respondent visited his house. She is said to have maltreated him in the presence of his guests forcing him to leave the house. It is alleged that he was also denied usual sex life by the respondent/wife, which influenced his mind, which led to his depression and frustration. It was further the case of the respondent/husband that the appellant forced him to be separate in mess and residence from his parents, and under her threat he had to separate from parents. It was alleged that ultimately she left the house on 7.2.1989 without any reasonable cause. Attempts of the panchayat to bring her back home failed. 5. It was further the case of the respondent/husband that the appellant forced him to be separate in mess and residence from his parents, and under her threat he had to separate from parents. It was alleged that ultimately she left the house on 7.2.1989 without any reasonable cause. Attempts of the panchayat to bring her back home failed. 5. The respondent/husband also moved a petition under Section 9 of the Act wherein a compromise was effected between the parties and they lived for few months together. The proceedings were transferred from Muktsar to Malout, where the respondent/husband could not appear and the petition was dismissed in default. Application for restoration of the petition also failed. 6. It was further the case of the respondent/husband that the wife withdrew from the society of the respondent/husband, without any reasonable cause, for a continuous period of two years preceding the filing of the petition. Another attempt made for reconciliation on 12.1.1997 also did not materialize. 7. On the pleadings referred to above the divorce was sought on the ground of mental cruelty as well as desertion. 8. The petition was contested by the appellant/wife. Allegations leveled were denied. A stand was taken that brothers of the appellant spent about Rs. 2,30,000/- (Rupees two lac and thirty thousand only) on the marriage and sufficient dowry was given. Allegations of maltreatment by the respondent/husband and his family members were levelled. The appellant claimed that she was turned out of the house in the first week of March, 1989 after giving severe beatings. Dowry articles said to have been given in marriage were also mentioned in the petition. It was claimed, that it was due to the conduct of the husband, that she had to come to Malout, to the house of her brothers, as she was pregnant at that time. She gave birth to son Aman in October, 1989. Respondent visited her, but did not bring any customary article. Rather he is said to have demanded money for running his business. She also alleged that panchayats were convened for reconciliation but the respondent did not respond favourably. It was alleged that, the respondent/husband himself left the house, and started living with his parents. She is looking after the only child without any assistance from the respondent/husband. The case was transferred from Muktsar to Bathinda on an application moved by the appellant/wife. 9. It was alleged that, the respondent/husband himself left the house, and started living with his parents. She is looking after the only child without any assistance from the respondent/husband. The case was transferred from Muktsar to Bathinda on an application moved by the appellant/wife. 9. The learned District Judge, Bathinda decided issue of cruelty against the respondent/husband. However, divorce was granted on the ground of desertion. Findings recorded by the learned District Judge upholding the ground of desertion read as under -- "21. Even from the pleadings and the evidence produced by the respondent, it is established that the respondent deserted the petitioner continuously for a period of more than two years at the time of filing the petition. In para No. 10 at page No. 12 of the reply, there are relevant admissions, which are re- produced, as under - "The respondent remained with the petitioner for about three months, but then the petitioner himself left the house and started residing with his parents. During this period of three months, the brother of respondent got purchased a Fridge worth Rs. 12,325/- and Godrej Washing Machine worth Rs. 6,600/- to the respondent. After petitioner left the respondent in the house, the respondent remained all alone along with her son for another two months." Admittedly, the parties lived together as a matter of settlement during the proceedings of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act w.e.f. 2.5.1995. According to the petitioner, the respondent left without any reasonable cause on 25.9.1995. The averments made in para No. 10 of the reply show that the parties lived together in total for a period of three months and the respondent remained in the house of the petitioner for another two months, which period ended in September or October 1995. Accordingly, it stands proved that at the time of filing the petition, the respondent was living separate from the petitioner continuously for a period of more than two years. Thus the plea of the respondent that they lived together up to November, 1996, cannot be sustained. 22. Satpal Dabra (RW 1) admitted that the parties remained together for about three months. After three months, Saroj Rani was sent back as she was not feeling well. in his cross-examination, he stated that in the year 1995, they joined matrimonial house at Muktsar. 22. Satpal Dabra (RW 1) admitted that the parties remained together for about three months. After three months, Saroj Rani was sent back as she was not feeling well. in his cross-examination, he stated that in the year 1995, they joined matrimonial house at Muktsar. In all she remained with Rakesh Kumar after marriage for about five months. He further admitted at page No. 4 of his cross-examination that since September, 1995, Saroj Rani is residing at Malout. It is thus clear that Saroj Rani has been living separate since September. 1995-. Jalour Singh (RW 2) admitted in his cross-examination that Saroj Rani remained with the petitioner for about 3-4 months and then came to Malout. She has been employed at Malout since the date of her marriage. Subhash Chand (RW 3). who is the brother of the respondent, admitted that a compromise was effected and in pursuance to that Rakesh Kumar rehabilitated his sister on 2.5.1995. He admitted that Saroj Rani purchased a house at Malout on 7.12.1996 for her permanent residence. He also admitted that after October, 1990, she joined the matrimonial house on 2.5.1995. When such are the circumstances, it becomes clear that the respondent has got no intention to live with the petitioner. She has already made her mind to settle at Malout. During all the time, she made no effort to get herself transferred to Muktsar i.e. the place where the petitioner has got his house. The parties have been lying separately since the year 1990, as admitted by Subhash Chand (RW 4) brother of the respondent. The parties lived for 1-1/2 years together, as admitted by Saroj Rani in her cross-examination at page No. 3. She also admitted that she has purchased a house at Malout and she has been residing there along with her son. Thus, her plea that she continued living with the petitioner till November. 1996, cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances, it becomes clear that the marriage has irretrievably broken and there are no chances of reconciliation. All doors for settlement or compromise stand closed for the parties. In such a situation, it will be great injustice to the petitioner, if the marriage is not dissolved. The continuation of the marriage will not only cause frustration and upset the petitioner mentally, but it will also create an impression that judicial system is unable to solve his matrimonial dispute. In such a situation, it will be great injustice to the petitioner, if the marriage is not dissolved. The continuation of the marriage will not only cause frustration and upset the petitioner mentally, but it will also create an impression that judicial system is unable to solve his matrimonial dispute. No useful purpose can be served while keeping such a marriage surviving when the parties at no cost can live together. Both the parties are making allegations and counter allegations against each other. In such a situation, it is highly doubtful that at any stage they can be united. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that it will be in the interest of parties that they should be separated by a decree of divorce and at least thereafter they can live in peace. To this view, I find support from the authority Romesh Chander v. Smt. Savitri, 1995(2) RRR 124 - 1995(1) HLR 325 (SC). In that case, it was held that if a marriage was dead and there was no chance of its being retrieved, it was better to bring it to an end. If the marriage is dead both emotionally and practically, continuance of marital alliance for namesake is prolonging the agony and affliction. While applying the law laid down in this authority to the facts of the present case, I find that during the period of about 13 years, the parties have been unable to live more than two years. As and when they were united by the Courts, even then they could not live together and had to be separated due to one reason or the other. Thus the marriage is broken for all intents and purposes. 23. In a similar circumstances, the Hon-ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in a case Om Purkash v. Sareshta Devi, 1993(3) RRR 45- 1993(2) HLR 72, laid down that where husband proved refusal of wife to stay with him for a long period, the ground for desertion was proved. The fact that the parties lived together for a short period at the intervention of the Court for the purpose of reconciliation would not disprove the desertion and the husband would be entitled to a decree of divorce. 24. In another case, Smt. Sudesh v. Mahabir Singh, 1994(2) RRR 95 - 1994(1) HLR 213, the marriage was solemnized on 29.4.1979. The fact that the parties lived together for a short period at the intervention of the Court for the purpose of reconciliation would not disprove the desertion and the husband would be entitled to a decree of divorce. 24. In another case, Smt. Sudesh v. Mahabir Singh, 1994(2) RRR 95 - 1994(1) HLR 213, the marriage was solemnized on 29.4.1979. The wife insisted that husband started living separate from his parents. Husband was not prepared to leave his old parents alone. Wife started living separately since 1982. Petition for divorce was filed by the husband in the year 1987. Offer of the wife to go with the husband in the Court, was not accepted by the husband and it was held that it is not incumbent on the other party to agree to the offer of rejoining. The attitude of the wife in continuing in service at the expense of the marriage being dissolved goes a long way to show that the offer made by her in the Court cannot be taken too seriously. In this case also, Saroj Rani who was serving at Malout, did not agree either to get herself transferred to Muktsar or left her job to run her house at Muktsar. In the circumstances, I am convinced that the respondent has wilfully withdrawn from the society of the husband and to live in the matrimonial home and she has permanently settled at Malout. 25. The authorities Vinod Kumar Kapoor v. Indu Bala, 1983 HLR 217, Ram Dass v. Kanio, 1983 HLR 350, SukhenduBikash Chatterjee v. Anjali Chatterjee, 1996(2) HLR 92, Inderjit Kaur v. Balbir Singh, 1983 HLR 127, Romesh Kumar Sharda v. Neelam, 1993(2) HLR 94 and Shrikant Ramesajiwan Tripathi v. Saroj, 2000(1) HLR 292, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot help him in the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. As a result of my above discussion, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent." 10. Mr. H.S. Gill, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Bathinda primarily on the ground, that the learned matrimonial Court has taken irretrievable marriage to be the case of desertion. Mr. H.S. Gill, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Bathinda primarily on the ground, that the learned matrimonial Court has taken irretrievable marriage to be the case of desertion. Learned senior counsel referred to the order of learned District Judge, to contend that the learned District Judge did not discuss any evidence, to record a finding, that the wife has deserted the husband without any reasonable cause. The findings were recorded on presumptions, by placing reliance, on the authority, which has no relevance to the facts of the case. 11. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kulwant Singh v. Smt. Dalbir Kaur, 2005(2) RCR(Gvil) 548 - 2005(2) PLR 298, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down, that even if the parties are living separately for a number of years, this fact aione is sufficient to hold that the wife had deserted the husband, within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act. In order to succeed the husband is required to prove that the respondent had left his company without reasonable cause or excuse with intention to bring relationship to an end. 12. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case Baldev Singh v. Karamjit Kaur, 1996(1) RRR 342 - (1995-3) PLR 666 to contend that if the conduct of the husband is cruel, then the wife has a right to live separately and the husband cannot take benefit of his own wrong. This judgment is also not relevant to the facts of the case. 13. Mr. Binderjit Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that desertion was duly proved, therefore, no fault could be found with the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bathinda. 14. Reference was made to the statement of Kaur Singh son of Harchand Singh, in whose presence it was alleged that the wife while leaving the matrimonial home, proclaimed that she was leaving the matrimonial home permanently. But no such inference can be drawn. Though in the examination-in-chief he had stated that on 22.9 1995 in his presence the appellant had stated, that she was going permanently. Mr. Pawan Kumar who was said to be along with Kaur Singh was not produced. But no such inference can be drawn. Though in the examination-in-chief he had stated that on 22.9 1995 in his presence the appellant had stated, that she was going permanently. Mr. Pawan Kumar who was said to be along with Kaur Singh was not produced. In the cross-examination he was not able to prove that resolution had been passed by the Panchayat, nor he could name the President of Sabha who was said to have convened the panchayat. 15. It is not in dispute that the petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed. Restoration application was also dismissed. In the cross-examination, the respondent took a stand that he was not willing to rehabilitate the appellant, he also refused to take wife with him from the Court compound. He even denied having accompanied the panchayat, when the wife is said to have refused to join the company of respondent. 16. The evidence led by the respondent/husband only proved the fact that parties were living separately, that too for the reasons that the wife was working as a teacher at Malout and, thus, was staying at the place of her posting, where it was husband who joined her company, but thereafter left matrimonial home on the plea that her behaviour was rude. The allegation of bad behaviour, and mental cruelty did not find favour with the matrimonial Court and issue of cruelty was decided against the husband. In the absence of any evidence showing that the wife had deserted with an intention to bring matrimonial relationship to an end, it could not be said that the appellant/wife had deserted the husband, as held by the learned matrimonial Court. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent also referred to the judgments of Hon-ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 290 - 2006(2) CCC 226; Durga Prasannu Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripaihy, 2005(3) RCR(Civll) 819 - 2005(4) ICC 435 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Jagjit Kaur v. Ravinder Singh Kaisi, 2008(1) RCR(Civil) 758 and the judgment of Hon-ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Om Parkash v. Smt. Sareshta Devi, 1993(2) 11LR 12 to contend that the present marriage is irretrievable marriage and no ground is made out to interfere with the findings granting divorce by the learned matrimonial Court. 18. 18. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case Gurdeep Singh alias Tota Singh v. Jaspal Kaur, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 593, wherein, it has been laid down, that irretrievable marriage is no ground for grant of divorce. 19. The respondent/husband has also failed to prove plea of desertion in terms of Section 13 of the Act, therefore, findings of the learned matrimonial Court on issue No. 2 are hereby reversed. 20. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned matrimonial Court is set aside, and the petition filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13 of the Act is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs.