Sneh Prashar, J. 1. A petition bearing H.M.A. case No. 40-T dated 25.04.2007/17.04.2009 was filed by Krishanjit-wife invoking the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955") for dissolution. of her marriage with Ram Pal-husband by a decree of divorce, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 03.08.2009. In the petition, it was averred by Krishanjit that her marriage with the appellant was solemnized at Patiala on 19.06.1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, they cohabited as husband and wife at the matrimonial home and a daughter, namely, Mehak was born on 16.03.1995. She alleged that from the very beginning of the marriage, the behaviour of Ram Pal and his family members was non cooperative and disrespectful towards her. She was always insulted and mentally tortured with an intention to demoralize her and to compel her to leave the matrimonial home. She informed the parents of Ram Pal about his conduct but to no affect. She continued to bear the ill treatment with the hope that things might change with passage of time, but there was no improvement. In May, 2002, she appeared before the Women Cell and they both agreed to live separately. It was also agreed that the daughter would live with her. Krishanjit further submitted that since May, 2002 she was bringing up the daughter on her own, who was since studying in class 8th in the best School of Patiala and the appellant had never bothered to pay any maintenance to them. She was facing problems in bringing up the daughter because many a times for education and sports activities, when the signatures of the appellant were required on the forms to be filled by the child and she approached Ram Pal to put his signatures, he avoided to do so on one pretext or the other. Submitting that she was seeking divorce on the ground of separation since 2002 and for the welfare and benefit of their daughter and that there was no hope of reconciliation between them as Ram Pal had refused to take her back to the matrimonial home, Krishanjit prayed for a decree of divorce dissolving her marriage with the appellant. 2. Submitting that she was seeking divorce on the ground of separation since 2002 and for the welfare and benefit of their daughter and that there was no hope of reconciliation between them as Ram Pal had refused to take her back to the matrimonial home, Krishanjit prayed for a decree of divorce dissolving her marriage with the appellant. 2. On notice of the petition, Ram Pal appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the petition in the present form, suppression of true and material facts by Krishanjit, cause of action etc. He submitted that he was still ready and willing to keep Krishanjit as his wife. The allegations in the petition were said to be false, frivolous and vexatious. He pleaded that it was Krishanjit who wanted to shift to Patiala City and left his society without any sufficient cause. Despite his best efforts, she declined to return. According to him, the cause of dispute was that Krishanjit pressurized him to shift to Patiala City. When he did not agree she started misbehaving with him and his family members and ultimately left the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reason. Several times, he approached her to join his conjugal company but to no affect. Rather, through police she approached and tried to pressurize him to concede to her demands and live separate from his family. Denying that he had ever refused to sign or give his consent for admission of minor daughter and all other allegations, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3. Respondent-Krishanjit filed replication controverting the objections raised by appellant-Ram Pal and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-- "(1) Whether respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged? OPP. (2) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner without any cause, as alleged? OPP. (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce, as alleged? OPP. (4) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR. (5) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR. (6) Relief." 4. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. 5. OPP. (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce, as alleged? OPP. (4) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR. (5) Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR. (6) Relief." 4. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. 5. Considering the evidence and arguments addressed, learned trial Court, accepted the allegation of Krishanjit that she had been treated with cruelty and had been deserted without any reasonable cause by Ram Pal-husband and decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of Krishanjit. Under Issue No. 3, learned trial Court rejected the prayer of Krishanjit for grant of maintenance allowance or permanent alimony leaving her to file separate proceedings for the same, if so advised. Accordingly, a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of Ram Pal with Krishanjit, was passed. 6. Feeling aggrieved, appellant-Ram Pal preferred the instant appeal. 7. We have heard the submissions made by Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate for the appellant. 8. Before going into the contentious issue, it would be relevant to refer some admitted facts. Appellant Ram Pal was married to respondent Krishanjit on 19.06.1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Patiala and out of this wedlock a daughter, namely, Mehak was born on 16.03.1995. Because of the marital dispute between the parties they were residing separately since May, 2002 and daughter Mehak was living with her mother-Krishanjit since then. 9. Krishanjit sought dissolution of her marriage with the appellant on two grounds, (i) that she had been treated with cruelty; (ii) that she had been deserted by the appellant without any rhyme or reason and without any fault on her part. The appellant denied all allegations of Krishanjit and alleged that because he was residing at village Malo Majra and Krishanjit wanted to reside in City Patiala and despite being pressurized by her he did not agree to shift to City Patiala, she walked out of his society on her own volition and without any sufficient cause. 10. The appellant denied all allegations of Krishanjit and alleged that because he was residing at village Malo Majra and Krishanjit wanted to reside in City Patiala and despite being pressurized by her he did not agree to shift to City Patiala, she walked out of his society on her own volition and without any sufficient cause. 10. Finding that Krishanjit had succeeded in proving that Ram Pal-husband treated her with cruelty and also deserted her without any reasonable cause, learned trial Court recorded the reasons as under:-- "PW1 Krishanj it-petitioner has made statement that respondent subjected her to cruelty in the presence of his family members and ultimately turned her out of his house. Her this version is corroborated from the statement of PW2 Shanta Sethani, in whose presence the respondent insulted the petitioner and subjected her to cruelty. Although RW1 Ram Pal respondent and RW2 Lakhan Masih stated that the petitioner left society of the respondent without any reasonable cause and respondent is still ready and willing to keep her along with Mehak, but their this plea does not appear to be correct. There is nothing on record showing that the respondent ever filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Further it is admitted that the petitioner and the respondent are residing separate since May, 2002. The petitioner is also bringing up her minor daughter Mehak. Petitioner is a teacher at St. Peters Academy where her daughter Mehak is studying. There is nothing on record from the side of the respondent showing that he ever made any effort to give maintenance to his daughter, who is residing with the petitioner. So, the plea of the respondent appears to be an after thought. It is evident that the plea of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and deserted her is correct. Had plea of the respondent to keep and maintain the petitioner and his minor daughter been genuine, he would have filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner." 11. Indeed, there appears to be no adversity or perversity in the findings of learned trial Court. During her statement, Krishanjit deposed that after marriage the behaviour of Ram Pal and his family members was always harsh towards her. They insulted her and mentally tortured her without any reason. Indeed, there appears to be no adversity or perversity in the findings of learned trial Court. During her statement, Krishanjit deposed that after marriage the behaviour of Ram Pal and his family members was always harsh towards her. They insulted her and mentally tortured her without any reason. Number of times she was beaten by Ram Pal in the presence of his parents. So much so that at times he also physically assaulted her on the road in front of the house. She requested her parents-in-law to ask Ram Pal to mend his ways but to no result, rather they favoured their son. They also never treated Mehak as their daughter/granddaughter. They neglected her and never intended to provide good education to her. The deposition of Krishanjit was further to the effect that since May, 2002 she and her daughter were living separately from Ram Pal and during this period neither the appellant nor his family members had ever tried to reconcile with her or to meet her daughter Mehak. 12. The statement of Krishanj it was supported by PW2 Shanti Sethani, an acquaintance. She deposed that she was having good terms with Krishanjit and had visited her matrimonial home many a times prior to her separation from her husband. She added that as per her knowledge the appellant was not doing any job or work since his marriage, whereas Krishanjit had been working as teacher in St. Peters Academy at Patiala. A number of times when she visited the house of Krishanjit, her husband Ram Pal insulted her without any reason only with a motive to humiliate her. She had also been told by Krishanjit that Ram Pal had often beaten her mercilessly. 13. Appellant Ram Pal through his affidavit Ex.RW1/A deposed that from the very beginning of their marriage Krishanjit used to pressurize him to shift to Patiala and to start some business there. When he refused to accept her demand, she started misbehaving with him and his parents by picking up quarrels on trivial matters. It was only to pressurize him that she left his society along with her daughter and started living with her parents at Patiala. The statement of appellant Ram Pal was supported by RW2 Lakhan Masih, a resident of his village. 14. It was only to pressurize him that she left his society along with her daughter and started living with her parents at Patiala. The statement of appellant Ram Pal was supported by RW2 Lakhan Masih, a resident of his village. 14. No doubt, Krishanjit stated that in May, 2002, she left the house of her husband Ram Pal and since then had been residing separately from him along with her minor daughter. Needless to say that there is a difference between leaving the conjugal company of the spouse without any rhyme or reason and having left the company under forced circumstances. Krishanjit explained that while living with Ram Pal she was being harassed and maltreated by him and his family members. They abused and insulted her in presence of other persons and often physically assaulted her. As observed above, her statement stands corroborated by PW2 Smt. Shanti Sethani who number of times witnessed Ram Pal insulting his wife Krishanjit without any reason. 15. Learned counsel for appellant Ram Pal argued that the allegation of respondent-Krishanjit of having faced cruelty at the hands of Ram Pal was general in nature. No specific incident of harsh behaviour was disclosed by her. If her allegation was corroborated by PW2 Smt. Shanti Sethani, RW2 Lakhan Masih supported the version of Ram Pal that the only grievance of Krishanj it was that she wanted Ram Pal to shift to City Patiala but as he was not ready to do so, she misbehaved with him. RW2 also stated that after Krishanjit left her matrimonial home, he many a times accompanied the Panchayat taken by Ram Pal to bring her back but she flatly refused. Learned counsel urged that PW1 Krishanjit also admitted that after she left her husband Ram Pal in 2002, she never tried to reconcile the matter and also never went to live with her husband. From her statement and other evidence, it was clear that she had left the conjugal company of the appellant-husband without any reasonable cause. 16. We find no force in the argument of the learned counsel. Krishanjit testified very specifically that she often used to be beaten by her husband Ram Pal in the presence of his parents and sometimes even in the street in front of their house. 16. We find no force in the argument of the learned counsel. Krishanjit testified very specifically that she often used to be beaten by her husband Ram Pal in the presence of his parents and sometimes even in the street in front of their house. In May, 2002 when she was beaten and she gave complaint to the Women Cell she had suffered injuries on her nose and head and had taken treatment from Dr. Brar. She could not produce any medical document but her deposition about the incident of physical assault on her by her husband was very specific. In addition to that PW2 Smt. Shanti Sethani was a witness to the harassment and insult Krishanjit had faced at the hands of Ram Pal. She was an independent witness and had no reason to falsely support Krishanjit or depose against Ram Pal. 17. Importantly, PW2 Shanti Sethani stated that even when Krishanjit was living with her husband, their daughter was studying in St. Peters Academy. She also stated that even prior to marriage with Ram Pal, Krishanjit was working as teacher in St. Peters Academy. When after marriage Krishanjit continued to work in the same Academy at Patiala and after the daughter was born and she attained the age of going to school and she too was admitted in the same school i.e. St. Peters Academy, it does not appeal to a prudent mind that Krishanjit demanded or pressurized Ram Pal to shift to City Patiala and for that reason she left her matrimonial home. 18. While PW2 Shanti Sethani was an eyewitness to harassment and maltreatment of Krishanjit by appellant Ram Pal, the information of RW2 Lakhan Masih that Krishanjit was compelling the appellant to shift to Patiala was based simply on the information given by Ram Pal himself. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge whether or not there was any such dispute between the parties. Thus, from the evidence there remains no doubt that Krishanjit was facing ill treatment and harassment at the hands of Ram Pal because of which she was forced to leave her matrimonial home with her daughter. Ram Pal stated that he had made many attempts to bring his wife Krishanjit back to the matrimonial home but no substantive and reliable evidence could be produced by him in that direction. Admittedly, he and Krishanjit are residing separately since May, 2002. Ram Pal stated that he had made many attempts to bring his wife Krishanjit back to the matrimonial home but no substantive and reliable evidence could be produced by him in that direction. Admittedly, he and Krishanjit are residing separately since May, 2002. He had never approached the Court with a prayer for restitution of the conjugal rights. It is also not his case that he had ever paid anything to his wife Krishanjit or to his daughter Mehak for her maintenance and education etc. His contribution towards upbringing of the daughter had been nil. In such state of facts, the conclusion irresistible is that he intentionally did not care for his wife Krishanjit and hence deserted her. Resultantly, it is held that Krishanjit proved that she had been treated with cruelty by the appellant and had also been deserted by him without any fault on her part. Their marriage has irretrievably broken and it has reached a dead end. It is no longer possible for Krishanjit to live with Ram Pal. Accordingly, the findings of learned trial Court are hereby affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.