JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, H.P. ON 22.08.2012 in H.M.A. Petition No. 41 of 2009, whereby, the petition aforesaid constituted therebefore by the petitioner/appellant herein stood dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage inter se the contesting parties hereat stood solemnized on 4.12.1994 at village Matwar, PO Jalari, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Two children stand begotten from their wedlock. In the apposite petition, the petitioner herein averred qua the respondent herein had at public place abused and assaulted her whereupon she stood constrained to lodge an FIR with the Police Station, Naudan. Also she averred therein on 11.05.2007, the respondent herein assaulting her at bus stand Naudan, in sequel, whereto injuries stood inflicted upon her. She continued to aver therein qua the respondent herein being habitual drunkard besides his openly threatening to eliminate her. Since, three years hitherto, the institution of the apposite petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, she avers of her staying with her parents. She avers of the respondent herein not making any concerted efforts to retrieve her to her matrimonial home whereupon she deposes qua the respondent herein hence with his holding the apposite animus deserdendi alienating her from his matrimonial company. Moreover, she avers qua her stay at her matrimonial home being incongenial arising from the respondent herein perpetrating physical cruelty upon her rendering her stay with the respondent herein at latter's home to be unsafe. 3. The petition for divorce instituted by the petitioner/appellant herein before the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur stood contested by the respondent herein by his instituting reply thereto wherein he controverted all the allegations constituted against him in the apposite petition by the appellant herein in the petition. 4. The petitioner/appellant herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondent, wherein, he denied the contents of the reply and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the petition. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner, his wife with cruelty as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has deserted his wife petitioner as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 4. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner, his wife with cruelty as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent has deserted his wife petitioner as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped to file the present petition by her own act and conduct, as alleged? OPR 5. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned Additional District Judge, he concluded qua the incidents of physical cruelty embodied in the apposite petition remaining unproven for paucity of adduction of germane apposite cogent evidence. Also he concluded of the petitioner/appellant herein against the wish besides without the consent of the respondent herein departing from her matrimonial home, wherefrom, he concluded qua proof of the imperative ingredient of the respondent herein holding the enjoined animus deserdendi not emanating, leading him to conclude of the entire evidence adduced before him not holding any formidable sinew to make a conclusion qua either the respondent herein treating the petitioner/appellant herein with physical beside mental cruelty also no clinching evidence standing adduced in portrayal of the respondent herein deserting the matrimonial company of his lawfully married spouse, constraining it to hence decline the relief claimed in the apposite petition preferred before him by the petitioner/appellant herein. The learned trial Court in making the aforesaid conclusions has remained grossly oblivious to the relevant germane evidence in portrayal of the incident (s) of physical cruelty averred in the petition sequeling the lodging of an FIR by the petitioner/appellant herein before the Police Station concerned. Even if, a copy of the FIR stood not tendered into evidence, its non adduction into evidence was insignificant especially when in his cross-examination to which the respondent herein stood subjected to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant herein, he acquiesces qua in the year 2007, an FIR standing lodged by the petitioner/appellant herein against him qua the incident of cruelty averred in the petition. In sequel whereto, he has also acquiesced qua his facing trial before the Court concerned. In sequel whereto, he has also acquiesced qua his facing trial before the Court concerned. The further concomitant effect of the aforesaid acquiescences of the respondent herein is qua this Court standing entailed to record a firm inference qua thereupon the petitioner/appellant herein while imputing qua the respondent herein incidents of cruelty, her imputation not lacking in veracity besides obviously her departure in sequel thereto from her matrimonial home to her parental home standing prodded by a good and reasonable cause. The incidents of physical cruelty perpetrated upon the petitioner/appellant herein by the respondent herein when stand concluded to constitute a reasonable cause for the lawfully married spouse of the respondent herein to depart from her matrimonial home to her parental home renders unbereft of vigour the conclusion recorded by the learned trial Court qua her departure to her parental home being against the wish besides without the consent of her husband wherefrom it also inaptly concluded qua her continuous stay at her parental home not warranting it to afford the relief claimed in the apposite petition. 7. Be that as it may, even if, the petitioner/appellant herein had for a prolonged and inordinate duration refrained from cohabiting with her husband yet the aforesaid omission of the appellant herein/petitioner to cohabit with her husband would not inhibit this Court to conclude qua the respondent herein not holding the requisite animus deserdendi unless evidence of immense potency stood adduced in portrayal of the respondent herein throughout the period when the petitioner/appellant herein continued to stay at her parental home, his making vigorous sincere, genuine efforts to retrieve her to his matrimonial company. Though, the respondent herein has in his testification made an attempt to articulate qua his concerting to retrieve his married spouse to her matrimonial home, yet his endeavour visibly appears to smack of ingrained falsity, inference whereof is derivable from the factum of his sister-in-law (sister of the appellant herein) while deposing as RW-4 making a communication in her examination-in-chief qua the petitioner/appellant herein unraveling her to qua her husband belabouring her at her matrimonial home whereupon she stands constrained to cohabit with him. Also she in her testimony comprised in her examination-in-chief unveils therein qua hers concerting to persuade her to return to her matrimonial home by guaranteeing her safe stay thereat. Also she in her testimony comprised in her examination-in-chief unveils therein qua hers concerting to persuade her to return to her matrimonial home by guaranteeing her safe stay thereat. Moreover, in her cross-examination to which she stood subjected to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner she acquiesces to the suggestion put her by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant herein qua the father of the petitioner/appellant herein receiving a telephonic call whereupon he stood apprised qua the respondent herein belabouring the petitioner/appellant herein. She has also acquiesced to the suggestion put to her by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant while holding her to cross-examination qua hers not making any personal effort along with the respondent herein to visit the parental home of the petitioner/appellant herein for thereupon theirs conjointly endeavouring to retrieve her to her matrimonial home. The effect of the aforesaid acquiescences made by the respondent's witness is qua the respondent herein at her matrimonial home belaboruing his married spouse also therefrom bely the proclamations made by him qua his making efforts to retrieve his married spouse to her matrimonial home. 8. In aftermath, with the conclusion recorded by this Court qua the petitioner/appellant herein holding a good reasonable cause to depart to her parental home when stands entwined with the inference aforesaid erected qua the respondent herein not making any sincere concerted efforts to retrieve his married spouse to her matrimonial home, begets a derivative of the respondent herein holding the animus deserdendi to permanently alienate himself from the matrimonial company of his married spouse. In sequel thereto, with the incidents of perpetration of physical cruelty upon the petitioner/appellant herein by the respondent herein standing emphatically established besides with the respondent herein evidently holding the relevant animus deserdendi to alienate himself from the matrimonial company of his married spouse though enjoined the learned trial court to render a decree in the apposite petition for dissolution of marital ties laid therebefore by the petitioner/appellant, whereas, it omitting to afford the relief as prayed for, has apparently committed a grave legal misdemeanor. 9. 9. Moreover, RW-4 acquiesces in her cross-examination qua hers trying to prevail upon the respondent herein to wean himself from consuming liquor also hers concerting to dissuade him from belabouring the petitioner/appellant herein wherefrom also the apposite averments in consonance therewith constituted in the apposite petition acquire corroborative succor besides with hers in her cross-examination acquiescing to the suggestion put to her by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua hers concerting to wean the respondent herein from his ill conduct towards the petitioner herein not yielding the appropriate result constrains an inference of the casting in the apposite petition an apposite averment qua the stay of the petitioner/appellant herein at her matrimonial home being both unsafe besides incongenial hence standing proved, wherefrom, it is inevitable to conclude of their being abysmal want of affability inter se the married spouses also their mutual discord not being amenable to any truce or improvement rather their marital ties standing irretrievably broken down, wherefrom the rendering of an apposite decree for dissolution of their marital ties is both befitting besides sagacious. 10. For the foregoing reasons, it is apt to clinchingly conclude of with the marital ties of the petitioner/appellant herein with the respondent herein standing broken down irretrievably hence, the rendition of a decree qua severance of their marital ties would be both just and expedient. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the marriage inter se the petitioner/appellant and the respondent herein is ordered to be dissolved. In sequel, the judgment and decree impugned before this Court is quashed and set aside. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.