JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal arises from the impugned judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur on 7.4.2009 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 102 of 2005, whereby he allowed the petition preferred thereat under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the petitioner/respondent herein and passed a decree for dissolution of marriage inter se the parties to the lis on the ground of desertion. 2. The appellant herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned District Judge hence concerts to reverse it by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of the parties took place on December, 10, 1996 at Village Bani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, the parties lived together and the marriage was consummated but no child was born. Subsequently, one child was born whose parentage was disputed by the petitioner and he had filed a separate petition for this purpose which was dismissed by the District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., on December, 16, 2002. It is averred that thereafter the respondent/appellant herein continued to live at the house of her father. So, the petitioner went to the house of the parents of the appellant herein on March, 18, 2003 to bring her to the matrimonial house and she was accordingly brought there. But during her stay of 20-22 days, she left the house of the petitioner for 2-3 times and finally she did so on April 12, 2003 and thereafter she did not come back despite various efforts made by the petitioner and his family members. Thus, it is averred that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years without any sufficient cause. It is averred that the petitioner is paying permanent alimony of Rs.1487/- per month to the respondent as ordered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. So, it is prayed that the marriage of the parties may be dissolved. 4. It is averred that the petitioner is paying permanent alimony of Rs.1487/- per month to the respondent as ordered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. So, it is prayed that the marriage of the parties may be dissolved. 4. The respondent contested the petition and filed reply, wherein, she has taken preliminary objections that the divorce petition is not maintainable in the present form the earlier petition was dismissed by the Court, the lives of respondent and her son are not safe in the house of the petitioner, the petitioner has not treated the respondent as his wife nor he has fulfilled the matrimonial obligations and the petition may be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is averred that the respondent was taken to matrimonial house by the petitioner on March, 18, 2003. However, the petitioner did not keep her properly inspite of promise given by him. So, a compromise was entered into between the parties before the Gram Panchayat Bhapral, on March 18, 2003. It was signed by the parties and also by the father of the respondent/appellant herein amongst others. The respondent was kept like a slave in her matrimonial house and she was forced to sleep in a separate room on ground floor with her child and the petitioner himself slept in the room of his parents in the second storey of the house. The room of the respondent had no lock or bolt. The respondent was forced to work from morning till late evening. Whenever, there was telephone call from her parents, the respondent was not permitted to attend it. ON March, 18, 2003, when the father of respondent inquired about the vacation of the petitioner, he told that it was upto April 16, 2003. But on April 12, 2003, the petitioner sent the respondent to her parents' house with the specific instruction that his vacation had come to an end. There was specific plan of the petitioner and his family members that they would eliminate the respondent and her son, so that there may not be any hindrance to marry second time. She was made to sign on blank papers on the pretext that maintenance allowance would be transferred to his address in Village Chamyog. They had apprehension of her death in the house of petitioner as she was tortured during her stay and they had made her life miserable. She was made to sign on blank papers on the pretext that maintenance allowance would be transferred to his address in Village Chamyog. They had apprehension of her death in the house of petitioner as she was tortured during her stay and they had made her life miserable. They were in need of a servant not a daughter-in-law. It is averred that after March 8, 2003, the petitioner did not care to visit the house of his in-laws nor he made nay telephone call to his wife. It is averred that the respondent is willing to join the company of the petitioner provided that he keeps her as wife not as a servant and that he will perform the matrimonial obligations and also ensures the safety of her life and that of her child. 5. The petitioner/respondent herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondent/appellant herein, wherein, he denied the contents of the reply besides re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the petition. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner had treated the respondent with cruelty as alleged? OPR 4. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned District Judge, he allowed the petition of the petitioner/respondent herein. 8. Now the respondent/appellant herein has instituted the instant appeal before this Court wherein she has assailed the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned District Judge. Under the impugned rendition, the learned District Judge, Hamirpur had decreed the petition instituted therebefore by the petitioner/respondent herein seeking dissolution of his marital ties with the appellant herein. While affording the aforesaid decree, it had imputed credence to the apposite averments cast in the apposite petition for divorce qua the appellant herein intermittently on 2-3 occasions since 18.03.2003 deserting the matrimonial company of the petitioner/respondent herein, her final departure therefrom occurring on 12th April, 2003, whereafter she despite concerts made upon her by the petitioner/respondent herein to retrieve to her matrimonial home, hers holding obduracy to return thereto, credence whereof stood anchored upon the testimonies in tandem therewith deposed by PW-1, succor whereto stood lent by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. The appellant herein had in her reply projected of hers not willfully departing from the matrimonial company of the petitioner/respondent herein rather her departure therefrom standing engendered by the factum of (I) hers facing torture thereat hers standing treated as a slave. (ii) Also of the petitioner/respondent herein not cohabiting with her during her stay at her matrimonial home. 9. Section 13 of the Act though constitutes therein proven desertion by the errant spouse to empower the deserted spouse to stand entitled to a decree of dissolution of marital ties. However, in the explanation to Section 13 which stands extracted hereinafter, the imputations by the legislature qua the parlance borne by the phrase “desertion” is of its encompassing within its ambit the departure by the errant spouse from her matrimonial home, especially when the departure therefrom of the relevant spouse ensues from hers not holding any reasonable cause to depart therefrom also its ensuing from hers not obtaining the consent of her spouse also her departing from her matrimonial home conflicting with the wish of her spouse besides also encompasses within its ambit the willful neglect of the petitioner/respondent by the errant spouse. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant herein espouses qua the purported errant spouse validating her departure from her matrimonial home also her holding legal leverage to deprive the petitioner/respondent herein to seek a decree qua dissolution of his marital ties vis-a-vis her only on convincing evidence surging-forth qua hers holding a reasonable cause for her departure therefrom, whereupon the effect of her departure from her matrimonial home occurring assumingly without the consent and against the wish of the spouse claiming annulment of marriage with her would get subsumed. Explanation to sub section (1) of Section 13 of the Act reads as under:- “1[Explanation.- In this sub-section the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly]” 11. He contends of the dependence laid by the appellant herein upon the testimonies of RWs qua hence satiation of the aforesaid ingredients qua the statutory signification/parlance borne by the coinage “desertion”, standing begotten empowers her to legitimize her departure from her matrimonial home also validates her refusal to rejoin her matrimonial home significantly when in their respective examinations-in-chief, the RWs aforesaid voice qua on theirs visiting the matrimonial home of the respondent herein/petitioner and on theirs meeting her thereat, hers apprising them of the petitioner/respondent herein slapping her also theirs noticing qua one of her ear ring standing delinked from the relevant ear leading them to seek an explanation from the petitioner/respondent herein qua the cause for his belabouring the appellant herein whereupon he confessed qua his slapping her, begetting the sequel of the aforesaid confession of the respondent herein qua the fact aforesaid provenly embodying therewithin the trauma besetting the respondent/appellant herein at her matrimonial home, rendering it to be construable to be a reasonable cause for her departure from her matrimonial home. Also hence he contends of it being wholly unnecessary for the appellant herein to seek consent from the respondent herein prior to hers departing therefrom. However, the aforesaid ground espoused by the learned counsel for the appellant for thereupon this Court standing constrained to reverse the decree qua dissolution of marital ties pronounced by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur is unavailable to him given the aforesaid evidence as stands relied upon by him to succor his espousal qua the facet aforesaid remaining unpleaded in the reply meted by the appellant herein to the apposite petition constituted therebefore by the petitioner. In sequel it being beyond pleadings, it warrants it being discardable. 12. However, the learned counsel for the appellant proceeded to allude to the train of events which occurred prior to the petitioner/respondent herein constituting a petition for divorce before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, on the ground of the appellant herein deserting him. The relevant facts which occurred prior to the institution of the apposite petition, stand canvassed by him to be embedded in the petitioner/respondent herein as manifested by Ex.P-1 instituting a petition for dissolution of his marital ties with his spouse in the year 2000, on the score of the appellant herein holding an adulterous relationship, petition whereof sequelled its dismissal. The relevant facts which occurred prior to the institution of the apposite petition, stand canvassed by him to be embedded in the petitioner/respondent herein as manifested by Ex.P-1 instituting a petition for dissolution of his marital ties with his spouse in the year 2000, on the score of the appellant herein holding an adulterous relationship, petition whereof sequelled its dismissal. He contends that though thereat the appellant herein omitted to rejoin the matrimonial company of the respondent herein. However, when subsequent thereto as unraveled by Ex. R-1, exhibit whereof records a compromise entered inter se the contesting parties on 18.03.2003 also its holding portrayals of both thereafter holding consensus ad idem to live together as a married couple of hence it prodding the appellant herein to join the matrimonial company of her husband. However, the spell of her stay thereat was short-lived leading the respondent herein to institute a petition for divorce before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. 13. Furthermore, he contends of the aforesaid backdrop preceding the appellant herein rejoining the matrimonial company of the respondent herein also hers though acquiescing to the factum of the respondent herein proffering to her, on his visiting her at her parental home qua hers returning to her matrimonial home, concert whereof of the petitioner/respondent herein stood spurned by her on account of there being a threat to her life, constitutes the germane relevant material besides the fulcrum to test whether her refusal to rejoin her matrimonial home per se constitutes hers hence deserting his company, prominently when the memory of events preceding hers rejoining the matrimonial company of the respondent herein manifested in Ex.P-1 and Ex.R-1 still perennially stand etched in her mind predominantly when the revelations occurring therein are magnificatory of a perennial matrimonial strife arising inter se the marital relations of the parties to the lis. He contends of the learned District Judge slighting the effect of unfoldments occurring in Ex.P-1 wherein serious allegations of the appellant herein holding an adulterous relation stood constituted by the respondent herein as a ground for his seeking annulment of his marriage with her. The constitution of the aforesaid ground is canvassed by him to ipso facto foster an inference of the psyche of the appellant herein standing beset with an excruciating mental turmoil. The constitution of the aforesaid ground is canvassed by him to ipso facto foster an inference of the psyche of the appellant herein standing beset with an excruciating mental turmoil. Moreover, given the factum of hers prior to and after the rendition, comprised in Ex.P-1 continuing to stay at her parental house, yet under a compromise recorded in Ex.R-1, hers rejoining for a brief spell the matrimonial company of her husband, is not a stray fact, especially when Ex.R-1 also holds revelations of both staying separately besides holds in abundance a vivid display of the appellant herein not throughout the aforesaid period striving to regain her matrimonial company rather his besetting her psyche with excruciating turmoil by casting aspersions qua her chastity, aspersions whereof naturally mentally traumatized her also hold cascading repercussions upon the concert, made by the respondent herein upon the appellant after hers departing from her matrimonial home on hers thereat for a brief spell in sequel to Ex. R-1 rejoining the matrimonial company of her husband, for beseeching hers returning thereto, to stand entrenched with a vice of a guise also with a stain of a pretext only for contriving a ground for dissolution of marital ties inter se them, marital ties whereof throughout their duration when were visibly strife ridden wherewithin the respondent herein had cast aspersions qua the chastity of the appellant herein fillips an inference of the psyche of the appellant herein, during her brief stay at her matrimonial home in sequel to Ex. R-1 standing beset with a trauma reared by the events which occurred preceding thereto. He proceeds to contend of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur overlooking the effect of the excruciating mental turmoil besetting the mind of the appellant herein engendered by the aforesaid exhibits. He thereupon contends of the learned District Judge blunting the factum of the perenniality of their effect on her psyche rendering her stay at her matrimonial home to be bereft of congeniality also his slighting the factum of the mental trauma besetting her standing rekindled on hers returning to her matrimonial home after hers staying apart therefrom for about five years prior thereto. The psychological trauma besetting the mind of the appellant herein stands espoused to hence constitute a reasonable cause for hers departing from her matrimonial home. The psychological trauma besetting the mind of the appellant herein stands espoused to hence constitute a reasonable cause for hers departing from her matrimonial home. Consequently, if, she hence had a reasonable cause to depart therefrom also hence relieved her from obtaining the apposite consent of the respondent herein nor she was enjoined to aspire for eliciting his wish in hers departing from his matrimonial company. He with force contends of the reasonable cause constituted in the facets aforesaid per se legitimizing her departure from her matrimonial home, legitimization whereof flows from the parlance aforesaid borne by the expression “desertion” as stands statutorily borne in the relevant explanation to Section 13 of the Act which stands extracted hereinabove. 14. The marking of the aforesaid imputations by the counsel for the appellant herein qua the parlance borne by the legal coinage “desertion” embodied in the explanation to Section 13 of the Act is grossly astray from the intrinsic spirit also is starkly in departure from the innate besides subtle nuance carried by the phrase “without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party” occurring therein. The learned counsel for the appellant has imputed the aforesaid signification borne by the aforesaid phrase on his construing qua the prolonged departure of the errant spouse from her matrimonial home arising from hers facing mental trauma thereat hence constituting a reasonable cause for her to live apart from the matrimonial company of her husband. However, the aforesaid interpretation lent by him to the afore referred phrase occurring in the relevant explanation of “desertion” held in Section 13 of the Act arises from his relegating to the arena of redundance, the impact of the phrase “without reasonable cause “ standing segregated from the succeeding phrase “and without the consent or against the wish of such party,” by a conjunctive “and” whereupon hence both the phrases occurring prior thereto and subsequent thereto stand enjoined to be cumulatively read sequeling an inference of the departure of the errant spouse from her matrimonial home, for it to constitute a reasonable cause, it standing preceded by the consent besides it being within the wish of the husband. Since, the respondent herein after the departing of the appellant herein from her matrimonial home proceeded to her parental home for making a concert qua hers returning thereto, concert whereof stood spurned by the appellant herein on the ground of hers facing threat at her matrimonial home, renders her stay at her matrimonial home to be without a reasonable cause also her stay at her parental home being construable to be without the consent besides against the wish of the respondent herein. Moreover, hers portraying obduracy to return to her matrimonial home on the anvil of traumatizing events which occurred prior to hers for a brief span staying with her husband at her matrimonial home also her recalcitrance to return thereto sprouting from stay thereat being bereft of connubial felicity are contrarily a sure pointer of the unwillingness of the appellant herein to rejoin the matrimonial company of her husband also are connotative qua her obduracy to return to her matrimonial home not standing anchored upon any visible reasonable cause preeminently when her stay at her parental home conflicts with the wish of her husband whereas her stay at her parental home to fall within the ambit of hers holding a reasonable cause to stay thereat statutorily enjoins hers to hold the consent of the respondent herein. Contrarily, when the respondent has not meted consent to the appellant herein for her staying at her parental home, hence, empowers the respondent herein to sustain the decree for dissolution of his martial ties with her as stands pronounced by the learned District Judge. Moreover, given the prolonged departure of the appellant herein from her matrimonial home prior to hers for a brief period, in sequel to Ex. R-1 returning thereto is loudly connotative of the marriage inter se the them standing estranged besides embittered beyond repair. Also when hence, the marriage inter se both the appellant herein and the respondent herein stands irretrievably broken down, the concert of the appellant herein to resist the concert of the respondent herein to severe their marital ties by rendition of a decree of divorce is a spurious attempt to repair their marriage also is a specious assay to falsely portray her willingness to rejoin her matrimonial home. 15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the judgment and decree impugned before this Court is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.