JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (`the Act of 1955') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 passed by the Family Court, Udaipur in Case No. 16/2008, dismissing the application filed by the appellant-husband seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife on the alleged ground of desertion and cruelty. 2. Put in brief, the relevant facts and background aspects of the matter are that the marriage of the parties was solemnised on 27.01.1988. Two sons were born out of the wedlock, respectively on 27.01.1991 and 15.07.1992. It had been the case of the appellant that earlier, he was serving at Mumbai and the parties lived together there for about fifteen years but thereafter, he shifted to Udaipur and got engaged in the business related with gold and silver wherein he suffered adversities. According to the appellant, the respondent's sister and mother was also living at Udaipur and at their instance, she was entering into the quarrels with him. 3. The appellant further alleged that the respondent had been leaving his company and going to her mother's place and when lastly she did not return despite all the efforts, he filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 wherein, despite settlement, she did not return to her matrimonial house; and on the contrary, started abusing him and also misbehaved at his shop on 14.10.2007 with the employee Narayan Lal. The appellant alleged that the respondent had been pressurising him to transfer the entire business in her name and she was guilty of cruelty of conduct. 4. The respondent in her reply denied the allegations made in the petition and submitted that the appellant had taken to the life of easy-virtue and turned her out of the house. She alleged that the application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 was withdrawn by the appellant himself and he was not interested in keeping herself and the children. She also asserted that the shop in question was taken on rent from her stridden as also the monetary support given by her mother. She also pointed out other cases lodged against the appellant by herself and their son Jay Ramawat. 5. She also asserted that the shop in question was taken on rent from her stridden as also the monetary support given by her mother. She also pointed out other cases lodged against the appellant by herself and their son Jay Ramawat. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues on the questions involved in the present case:- " 1- vk;k izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ;k us nks lky ls vf/kd le; ls lk'k; vfHkR;Dr dj fn;k gS\ 2- vk;k vizkFkhZ;k us izkFkhZ ds lkFk yM+kbZ >xM+k dj fcuk crk;s ihgj jgdj o nqdku esa fnukWad 14-10-2007 dks rksM+QksM+ dj ekjihV dj izkFkhZ dks 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ;a=.kk;sa nsdj dzwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k gS\ 3- vk;k izkFkhZ }kjk vizkFkhZ;k ds lkFk ekjihV djus] dzwjrk dk O;ogkj djus o 'kjkc ihdj vk;k'kh djus rFkk ihgj ls iSlk ykus ds fy;s ncko Mkydj 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ;a=.kk;sa dkfjr dh xbZ gS\ 4-vuqrks"k\ " 6. In evidence, the appellant examined himself as AW-1 and one Shri Arif as AW-2, whereas the respondent examined herself as NAW-1 and the sons of the parties Arjun and Jay as NAW-2 and NAW-3 respectively. 7. After taking the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur proceeded to determine the three related issues together and found that the case of the dissolution not made out with the following findings:- " tgkWa rd foi{kh; }kjk izkFkhZ dks fcuk fdlh mfpr dkj.k ds nks lky ls vf/kd vof/k ls ifjR;Dr djus dk iz'u gS bl ckcr izkFkhZ us vius 'kiFk i= esa dsoy ek= ;g fy[kk gS fd mlus foi{kh; dks dHkh csn[ky ugha fd;k oju~ og viuh bPNk ls mldk ?kj NksM+dj xbZ gS vkSj viuh ekrk ds lkFk vyx jg jgh gS] mlus /kkjk 9 fgUnq fookg vf/kfu;e dk nkok Hkh is'k fd;k Fkk ftlesa le>kSrk dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku foi{kh;k us mlds lkFk jgus ls Li"V euk dj fn;kA " 8. It appears that both the parties had levelled allegations against each others character and conduct. So far the allegations against respondent were concerned, the learned Judge, Family Court found the same to be entirely baseless and wanting in all the relevant particulars. It appears that both the parties had levelled allegations against each others character and conduct. So far the allegations against respondent were concerned, the learned Judge, Family Court found the same to be entirely baseless and wanting in all the relevant particulars. The learned Judge, inter alia, observed and found as under:- " tgkWa rd izkFkhZ ds lkFk foi{kh;k }kjk dzwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS bl ckcr mldk dsoy ek= ;g dFku gS fd foi{kh; mldks Qksu ij vius fe=ksa ls /kefd;kWa fnykrh gS] mlds ifjfprksa ds lkFk foi{kh; us ekjihV dh vkSj mldk O;ogkj ges'kk gh dzwjrkiw.kZ jgk vkSj og vk;s fnu mldks >wBs izdj.kksa esa QWalk pqdh gS vkSj mldks /kefd;kWa nsrh gS ftl ckcr mlus ,0Mh0 ,e- flVh] mn;iqj o iqfyl v/kh{kd ds le{k f'kdk;r ntZ djokbZ FkhA bu dFkuksa dh iqf"V djus ds fy;s izkFkhZ us fdlh xokg dks is'k ugha fd;k gS vkSj u gh tks ,-Mh-,e- flVh] mn;iqj ;k iqfyl v/kh{kd] mn;iqj ds le{k f'kdk;r ntZ djokbZ mldh dksbZ izfr gh is'k dh gS] mlds iwoZ ifjfpr ds lkFk ekjihV djus dh ckr mlus dgh gS ijUrq ml iwoZ ifjfpr dks Hkh mlus is'k ugha fd;k gS vkSj ftjg esa Hkh og bl ckcr ;g ekurk gS fd og mldk ukSj ukjk;.kyky Fkk blfy;s bl xokg ds dFkuksa ls u rks foi{kh;k dk fcuk fdlh dkj.k izkFkhZ dk vfHkR;tu djuk lkfcr gksrk gS vkSj u gh mlds lkFk dksbZ dzwjrk dk O;ogkj djuk gh lkfcr gksrk gS cfYd blds foijhr izkFkhZ dh ftjg ls ;g lkfcr gS f dog egky{eh TosylZ ds uke ls mn;iqj esa O;kikj djrk Fkk vkSj ftl nqdku esa og dke djrk Fkk og foi{kh;k ds uke ls fdjk;s ij gSA orZeku esa izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj mlus viuk O;olk; can dj fn;k gS vkSj v cog iwuk esa ukSdjh djrk gSA bu gkykr esa bl Lohd`r fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, Hkh fd mlus viuk O;kikj can dj fn;k gS vkSj izkFkhZ us foi{kh; dks mldh fdjk;s'kqnk nqdku dk dCtk ugha laHkyk;k gS ;g rF; iwjh rjg lkfcr gSA foi{kh; us fdl O;fDr ls izkFkhZ dks /kefd;kWa fnyokbZ ;g rF; Hkh mlus vafdr ugha fd;k gS vkSj /kkjk 9 fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e dk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= Hkh mlus Lo;a gh okil fy;k Fkk ftlls Hkh ;gh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd og foi{kh; dks lkFk ugha j[kuk pkgrk FkkA izkFkhZ viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh ekurk gS fd mlus vius cPpksa ds lkFk Fkkus esa ekjihV dh Fkh ftldk ml ij eqdnek py jgk gS vkSj foi{kh; us mlds f[kykQ ,0Mh0,e0 flVh esa Hkh eqdnek fd;k FkkA izkFkhZ us vius c;kuksa eas foi{kh;k ds vU; yksxksa ls voS/k lEcU/k gksus ckcr dksbZ dFku ugha fd;s gS vkSj u gh izkFkZuk i= esa ,slk fy[kk gS cfYd mlus ftjg esa foi{kh;k ij ;g vkjksi yxk;k gS fd mlds lEcU/k vehj yksxksa ls gS vkSj mlds muds lkFk xyr lEcU/k gS vkSj bl dkj.k ls og mlds lkFk ugha jguk pkgrh gS] ijUrq ,slk u rks dksbZ vfHkopu gS vkSj u gh izkFkhZ us vius vfHkdFkuksa esa ,slh dksbZ lk{; nh gSA mlus nwljs xokg vkfjQ dks is'k fd;k gS ftlus vo'; vius c;kuksa esa ;g dgk gS fd foi{kh;k ds lEcU/k dbZ /kuk<~; yksxksa ls gS vkSj og gj ekg cksEcs vkrh tkrh gS vkSj og vU; yksxksa ds lkFk ?kwerh fQjrh gS vkSj mldk pkfj=d iru gks pqdk gS ijUrq bl xokg us Hkh ;g ugha crk;k gS fd foi{kh; fdu&fdu yksxksa ds lkFk ?kwerh gS vkSj fdlds lkFk mlds xyr lEcU/k gSA ;g xokg Hkh ;g ekurk gS fd izkFkhZ us viuk O;olk; can dj fn;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk O;olk; cUn djus ds ckn Hkh nqdku ij izkFkhZ dk gh dCtk gS ftlls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ foi{kh;k dks mldh fdjk;s'kqnk lEifRr okil ugha ykSVkuk pkgrk gSA ;g xokg foi{kh; dks vius firk dh jk[kh Mksjs dh cfgu gksrk dgrk gS ijUrq ;g Li"V dgk fd i{kdkjku ds chp fdl ckr dks ysdj >xM+k gS ;g ckr mlus tkuus dh dksf'k'k ugha dh vkSj u gh mlus vius firk dks ;g crk;k Fkk fd foi{kh;k xSjenksZ ds lkFk ?kwerh gS vkSj u gh bl ckjs esa foi{kh;k dks dHkh euk fd;k ftlls Li"V gS fd ;g xokg Hkh fcYdqy xyr c;ku ns jgk gS vkSj foi{kh;k ds vU; yksxksa ls lEcU/k gksus ds ckjs esa rks ;g xokg izkFkhZ ls Hkh c<+&p<+ dj c;ku ns jgk gSA " 9. The learned Trial Court also found that no such case against character was put in the cross examination of the respondent and also that the sons of the parties rather supported the case of the respondent; and that there were no reason to disbelieve her evidence. The learned Trial Court further observed as under:- " mlus viuh fyf[kr cgl esa foi{kh; ij vU; yksxksa ds lkFk voS/k lEcU/k gksus ds vkjksi yxk;s gS ijUrq bl fcUnq ij foi{kh;k ls ftjg esa dksbZ loky ugha iwNk x;k gS vkSj u gh ,slk dksbZ lq>ko fn;k x;k gS fd mlds fdl O;fDr ds lkFk voS/k lEcU/k gS vkSj og fdlds lkFk ?kwerh fQjrh gS vkSj fdlds lkFk cksEcs tkrh gS blfy;s ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ ds }kjk tks ykWaNu yxk;s x;s gS os vk/kkjghu gS vkSj foi{kh;k us izkFkhZ ds lEcU/k esa tks ?kj NksM+dj tkus ds dkj.k crk;s gS mldh iqf"V izkFkhZ ds gh nksuksa iq= vius c;kuksa esa djrs gS ftu nksuksa cPpksa ij dsoy ek= bl dkj.k ls vfo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd ;s viuh ekrk ds lkFk jgrs gS vkSj izkFkhZ ds }kjk buds lkFk ekjihV dh xbZ ftl dkj.k os >wBs c;ku nsrs gks D;ksafd mUgksaus viuh ftjg esa Hkh ;g Li"V Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mudh ekrk mUgsa mudk gd fnyokuk pkgrh gS vkSj vc mudh ekrk o firk dk lkFk jguk laHko ugha gS blfy;s ;g Li"V gS fd ;s nksuksa xokgku tks izkFkhZ ds gh iq= gS fdlh rF; gks fNikrs ugha gS cfYd muds le{k tSlh fLFkfr gS ogh os dFku djrs gS blfy;s esjh jk; esa izkFkhZ dh lk{; ls u rks foi{kh; }kjk fcuk fdlh mfpr dkj.k ds mldks nks lky ls vf/kd vof/k ls ifjR;Dr djus dk rF; lkfcr gks ik;k gS vkSj u gh foi{kh; }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFk fcuk fdlh dkj.k ekjihV dj mldks 'kkjhfjd o ekufld ;kruk;sa nsus dk rF; gh lkfcr gqvk gSA " 10. Even as regards the incident of 14.10.2007, the learned Trial Court observed that the allegations of respondent entering into altercation with the employee of the appellant were not making out the case of cruelty with the appellant; and, on the contrary, the appellant had definitely subjected the respondent to cruelty while levelling baseless allegations of illicit relations. Even as regards the incident of 14.10.2007, the learned Trial Court observed that the allegations of respondent entering into altercation with the employee of the appellant were not making out the case of cruelty with the appellant; and, on the contrary, the appellant had definitely subjected the respondent to cruelty while levelling baseless allegations of illicit relations. The learned Trial Court observed:- " fnukad 14-10-2007 dks vius fdjk;s'kqnk ifjlj esa vkdj izkFkhZ dh vuqifLFkfr esa mlds ukSdj ds lkFk foi{kh;k us >xM+k fd;k vkSj rksM+QksM+ o xkyh xykSp dh xbZ bl rF; dks ;fn rdZ ds fy;s lgh Hkh eku fy;k tkos rks bldks ekufld dzqjrk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS D;ksafd rFkkdfFkr >xM+k izkFkhZ ds lkFk ugha gksdj mlds ukSdj ukjk;.kyky ds lkFk fd;k x;k FkkA blds foijhr foi{kh;k dh lk{; o izkFkhZ ds xokg vkfjQ dh lk{; ls ;g rF; bl gn rd lkfcr gS fd foi{kh;k fcuk fdlh vk/kkjksa ds izkFkhZ us voS/k lEcU/kksa ds vk/kkjghu vkjksi yxk;s vkSj blls fuf'pr :i ls foi{kh; dks ekufld ;kruk igqWaph gSA " 11. In view of the findings aforesaid, the learned Trial Court rejected the case of the appellant and proceeded to dismiss the petition seeking dissolution of marriage. 12. Seeking to question the judgment and decree aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 and even during such proceedings, the respondent declined to live with the appellant. It is submitted that from the evidence adduced on record by the parties including the statements of the sons of parties, it is evident that the real dispute is that regarding the property and else, so far matrimony is concerned, the same has broken down and has already come to an end long before. It is submitted that in given status, where desertion is complete and cruelty of conduct of the respondent is also established, decree for divorce ought to be granted so as to put an end to the matrimony. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has duly supported the judgment and decree impugned. 13. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012. 14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has duly supported the judgment and decree impugned. 13. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are unable to find any reason to consider interference in the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012. 14. So far the grounds for dissolution for marriage i.e., desertion and cruelty of conduct are concerned, both are found to be non-existent in the present case and we have no hesitation in endorsing the findings of the learned Trial Court in that regard. 15. The appellant himself had not been categorical and specific on both the grounds on which the dissolution of marriage was sought. As regards the grounds of desertion, the appellant had failed to establish that the respondent left the matrimonial house of her own accord and with the specific intention of putting an end to the matrimony. The appellant has failed to show animus deserted on the part of the respondent and on an overall analysis of the evidence on record, we are unable to find any reason to draw any inference in that regard against the respondent. 16. Then, apart from generalised allegations, the specific incident as regards cruel conduct of the respondent had only been the one dated 14.10.2007 when she allegedly misbehaved with the employee of the appellant and thereafter, she allegedly threatened the appellant over telephone. The appellant could not deny the fact that the shop in question itself had been taken by the respondent on rent from Sheetal Nath Maharaj Trust. The direct interest of the respondent in the shop in question and in the tenancy thereof being available on record, the suggestions as made by the appellant in the petition appear to be baseless and are wanting in necessary particulars. The appellant has not been able to establish any specific case of cruelty of conduct. 17. It has also appeared on record that even prior to the alleged incident of 14.10.2007, Jay Ramawant, the son of the parties had lodged the FIR bearing No. 54/2006 Police Station Ghanta Ghar on 11.09.2006 against the appellant. The appellant has not been able to establish any specific case of cruelty of conduct. 17. It has also appeared on record that even prior to the alleged incident of 14.10.2007, Jay Ramawant, the son of the parties had lodged the FIR bearing No. 54/2006 Police Station Ghanta Ghar on 11.09.2006 against the appellant. Hence, even if it be assumed that there had been a dispute between the parties, and the same has rather taken the status more of a property dispute, yet, so far the claim for dissolution of marriage is concerned, on the allegations as made and the evidence as led, in our view, no case is made out; and the learned Trial Court has rightly declined to pass a decree of divorce in this matter. 18. In view of the above, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, having regard to the over all circumstances, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that the observations herein are only related to the claim as made by the appellant for dissolution of marriage; and shall have otherwise no bearing on any other matter between the parties or on the rights of any person claiming through them.Subject to the observations foregoing, this appeal stands dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******