JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - An application for divorce by the husband on the ground of desertion was allowed. The appellant is the wife, who is aggrieved with the decision. 2. The parties were Hindus and their marriage took place on 27.03.1991 at Naushehra Mazza Singh according to Sikh rites. They started living as husband and wife and the contention of the husband was that even within a few days after marriage, he found the wife to be indifferent to his ill-health and needs and after continual bickerings, the wife left the matrimonial home in June 1995 never to return to his company. The wife was guilty of desertion and there had been no resumption of cohabitation till the petition was filed in 2000. The wife responded to these allegations by stating that she had never deserted him, but it was the husband, who was guilty of visiting her with physical assault and cruelty. He and his parents were at all times complaining that she had not brought enough dowry. Personal slur on her looks were hurled against her and they stated that she looks like a house-maid and was not a suitable partner for the husband. She insisted that she continued to live with her husband and the marriage itself had been celebrated on a grand scale and she was turned out of the house only on account of greed for more dowry and money and the inability of the wife’s parents to cope with the demands of the husband. 3. At the time of trial, the case took slightly a different focus. In an attempt to state that the husband or his family were never in greed for more dowry or money, it was contended that they were devotees of Sant Harsharan Singh and the wife’s father was also an ardent devotee and the marriage took place only by the acceptance of the proposal made by Sant Harsharan Singh. The petitioner gave evidence to the effect that the marriage party was just a small number of 15 to 20 persons and after marriage at Naushehra Mazza Singh, the parties went to a gurdwara and took langar. The petitioner’s contention was that the respondent’s father came to Chandigarh in July 1991 and took the wife to Naushehra Mazza Singh and she stayed back and when the petitioner had went to fetch her, he was insulted and sent back. The petitioner’s contention was that the respondent’s father came to Chandigarh in July 1991 and took the wife to Naushehra Mazza Singh and she stayed back and when the petitioner had went to fetch her, he was insulted and sent back. Between July 1991 to June 1995, there had been no communication at all between the parties and the intervention of the uncle namely Bhagwant Singh, the parties again starting living together at Chandigarh, but she left the house on 30.06.1995 never to return again. 4. The respondent denied that there had been a separation from the year 1995 and she wanted to contend that she had stayed with him till the year 2000 and at the trial, therefore, the attempt by the petitioner was to elicit information of the various events that had taken place at the residence of the petitioner between 1995 to 2000. The Trial Court found that many of the incidents, which she ought to have known, if she had stayed with him and, therefore, her contention that she was staying with him could not be true. To wit, admittedly the husband had constructed a new house in the year 1997 at House No.536 in Sector 33, Chandigarh. The husband gave evidence to the effect that he was living in new house after 1997 but the wife admitted that she had never lived in new house. She was asked about the telephone number at the new house which she did not know. She was also asked about the owner of the house, where they were previously living, about whom also she did not know. She expressed her ignorance about the incident of death of the wife of the landlord which she ought to have known if she was living with the husband at the said house. As the 4th incident, in a complaint which the wife gave against her husband under Section 498-A IPC, she had given only the address of the petitioner at Sector 34 and had not given the address of the petitioner at the new house where he said that he moved in the year 1997. In the latter part of the evidence, she stated that she was living with her husband in Sector 33, but she was unable to remember the name of the famous garden situated in Sector 33. In the latter part of the evidence, she stated that she was living with her husband in Sector 33, but she was unable to remember the name of the famous garden situated in Sector 33. She did not also remember when the mother of the petitioner met with an accident and also admitted that she did not visit to see her mother-in-law when she had been injured between the period 1995 to 2000. She did not know the death of the maternal uncle of the petitioner in the year 1999 at Bangkok. She did not also know the names of neighbours of the petitioner. 5. The way the evidence had been elicited and the way several of the incidents she did not know, it was possible that the wife did not reside with the husband during the time from 1995 to 2000. The learned counsel for the wife pointed out at the time of arguments that even in the petition filed by the husband for divorce, he had given only the address at Sector 34 and not the newly built house at Sector 33 which meant that he had not really shifted to Sector 33 in the year 1997, as contended by him. I would only see this to be a minor discrepancy, for, the averment in the petition as well as in the evidence was that he had been building the house in Sector 33 and also shifted there. 6. About the pompous marriage which the respondent attempted to recount, perhaps, her attempt was to show that the parents had already spent a lot of money for her marriage and the petitioner’s parents were greedy to demand more. The photographs had been filed which revealed that langar was being served only at the gurdwara and it was a simple wedding and not celebrated in any marriage palace or resort. I really do not see from the evidence that there were any serious differences between spouses or any serious mistake on the part of the wife. One thing becomes clear that the parties did not reside together from the year 1995. While the petitioner states that the wife went without any sufficient reason to her own parents’ house, the respondent-wife would say that she was compelled to live away only on account of maltreatment of the petitioner and about the insinuation which he made against her looks. While the petitioner states that the wife went without any sufficient reason to her own parents’ house, the respondent-wife would say that she was compelled to live away only on account of maltreatment of the petitioner and about the insinuation which he made against her looks. The evidence of PW2-Bhagwant Singh was with reference to the simple nature of wedding that was celebrated and the evidence of RW2, who was the unmarried sister of the wife, to say that her sister was physically assaulted by the husband’s parents. 7. If the act of separation had been an established fact, the issue would have to depend on whether the wife was staying away from her husband without reasonable and just cause. The justification given by the wife was that the parents of the husband were greedy and they were looking for more dowry. This, I am convinced, cannot be true, for, the wedding itself had been a simple affair and both of them owed to spiritual allegiance to Sant Harsharan Singh and the petitioner’s family could not have been interested in a large dowry and used it as a ground for discarding the wife. I cannot still believe that the wife had left the husband’s company without any reason. There may probably be truth in their contentions that the husband and his parents were making derogatory remarks about her looks and her rural upbringing which could have caused disharmony between the husband and the wife. There had been several attempts made even when the appeal had been filed by the parties to work through a meaningful settlement under the auspices of the Mediation Centre, but they did not yield fruit. The general quality of evidence on the side of the wife were several tissues of untruth and I am unable to pick up just one statement relating to the husband’s derogatory remarks against her as fully established and that the husband was trying to take advantage of his own wrong. 8. At the time of trial, the husband was specifically asked about his willingness to take back the wife and he had refused to express himself in favour of such a prospect while the wife still persisted at that time that she was willing to go and leave with the husband. 8. At the time of trial, the husband was specifically asked about his willingness to take back the wife and he had refused to express himself in favour of such a prospect while the wife still persisted at that time that she was willing to go and leave with the husband. Separation seems unfortunate, but I am of the view that the husband had proved the separation from the year 1995 and to his charge that the wife had no valid justification for her separate living, the response by the wife was fragile and no weighty reason had been elicited for justifying a separate living. The marriage has run into a rough weather and I uphold the finding of the trial Court that the wife was guilty of desertion. 9. The wife has been paid Rs.2,500/- per month as interim maintenance. I will grant to the wife a relief of Rs.3,500/- as permanent alimony from the date of the decree under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife shall be at liberty to apply to the Court for any modification of the order if better particulars of the means of the husband are disclosed. The husband shall likewise be entitled to apply for modification if there is ever a change either as regards his own financial status or change in circumstance relating to the marriage status of the wife if she gets married or if she comes by any source of income which would relevant for reworking the quantum of maintenance. 10. The appeal by the wife is dismissed on the above terms. ------------0.S.L.0------------