JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the wife – respondent in MC.No.3/2009 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Belgaum being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 24th August 2012. The court below by the impugned judgment has decreed the petition filed by the respondent–husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty and also desertion. 2. The facts of the case to be stated in brief as per the petition averments are that respondent married the appellant on 17th July 1983. Out of the wedlock they begot two sons. In 1984 appellant left the matrimonial house without intimating the respondent to her parents house at Dharwad. Though respondent made efforts to get back the appellant, but failed. The appellant lodged a complaint against the respondent, but with intervention of the local police, the respondent was asked to take back the appellant and lead a married life. Accordingly, they led married life from 1985 to 1990. Again, since May 1991, the appellant started picking up quarrels with respondent’s parents with an intention to avoid household works. Again, appellant left the matrimonial house without consent of the respondent and stayed with her parents. While leaving the matrimonial house, the appellant threw away the mangalsutra on the face of the respondent’s mother. She left both sons in the custody of the respondent. Respondent made sincere efforts to bring back the appellant, but failed. The appellant and her parents and her henchmen came to respondent’s house in March 1992 and forcibly took custody of two sons. Respondent filed MC No.29 of 1992 which was renumbered as MC No. 126 of 1993 before the Family Court, Belgaum for restitution of conjugal rights and he also filed G and WC No.13 of 1993 for custody of children. MC No.126 of 1993 came to be allowed and the appellant was directed to join the respondent as per the order dated 02nd February 1994 but G and WC came to be dismissed. The appellant preferred MFA No.3307 of 1995 and the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to Trial Court. In the meantime, the appellant filed Criminal Misc.192 of 1992; she also filed a complaint for the offence under Section 498- A of Indian Penal Code against the respondent and his parents. The appellant preferred MFA No.3307 of 1995 and the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to Trial Court. In the meantime, the appellant filed Criminal Misc.192 of 1992; she also filed a complaint for the offence under Section 498- A of Indian Penal Code against the respondent and his parents. After contest, the complaint filed by the wife which was numbered as CC No.144 of 1993 came to be dismissed and the respondent and his parents were acquitted on 01st December 1997. Again the respondent made efforts and succeeded to bring back the appellant. However, the appellant continued the mental torture and agony on the respondent. He could not concentrate upon his hosiery business and ultimately suffered loss and closed the business. Therefore, the respondent left the matrimonial house and went to Ballari with sons. Ultimately, the elders requested the respondent’s Mother to accommodate the appellant and her two sons in one room of the House at Jed Galli, Shahpur, Belgaum and was requested to pay Rs.700/- per month, which was acceded to by the respondent. In spite of this the appellant started picking up quarrels everyday and caused mental cruelty and agony to the respondent. The respondent filed MC No.103 of 1998 for dissolution of marriage which came to be dismissed on 14th March 2001. He filed MFA No.1744 of 2001 before this Court which came to be disposed of on the ground that the matter was already referred to panchas and the parties should approach the panchas and get the matter settled. But the panchas were not ready because of the quarrelsome nature of the appellant. She filed Criminal Misc. No.168 of 2003 for maintenance in which a sum of Rs.750/- per month was awarded. It was increased to Rs.1,000/- in the RPFC No.103 of 2005 filed by the respondent. The appellant and her major son, in the meantime committed trespass upon the neighbouring room of the house thereby respondent’s mother had to institute suits which were decreed. The appellant challenged the said decree unsuccessfully up to this Court. Ultimately, possession of the room was secured by the mother of the respondent by filing execution petition. Appellant also filed CC No.810 of 2004 against the respondent and his parents for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant challenged the said decree unsuccessfully up to this Court. Ultimately, possession of the room was secured by the mother of the respondent by filing execution petition. Appellant also filed CC No.810 of 2004 against the respondent and his parents for the offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On contest, the respondent and his parents were acquitted. The appellant instigated her son to institute OS No.286 of 2006 against the respondent and his parents for partition and separate possession. The respondent is regularly paying the maintenance to the appellant. But the appellant takes pleasure in litigating against the respondent by filing cases after cases just to keep alive the litigation. Appellant has filed Criminal Misc. No.424 of 2007 under Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code for enhancement of maintenance. Since 1998 onwards, the appellant has deserted the respondent once for all with an intention not to lead marriage life with the respondent. The appellant has made the life of the respondent miserable. Due to such quarrelsome lady like appellant and continuous frivolous litigations, the respondent has suffered mental cruelty and agony. The appellant has voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the respondent. This would amount to causing mental cruelty. Since 1998 the appellant has deserted the respondent and there is no cohabitation thereafter. There is absolutely no possibility of resuming the matrimonial ties between the respondent and the appellant. Hence, respondent has prayed for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 3. Appellant has filed objections admitting the marriage and denying various other averments made in the petition. She has admitted the filing of maintenance petition and criminal complaint. In 1998, the respondent and herself executed alkat patra, it is only a nominal one. The respondent neglected her and the children. The appellant has stated she is ready to lead a married life with the respondent and she requires Rs.20,000/- per month for her maintenance. 4. The respondent got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 21 documents. The appellant was examined herself as RW1 and got marked three documents. The court below, after hearing the arguments, was pleased to allow the petition. Being aggrieved, the wife is in appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. The appellant was examined herself as RW1 and got marked three documents. The court below, after hearing the arguments, was pleased to allow the petition. Being aggrieved, the wife is in appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the court below has failed to see that by the admission of the respondent himself in his cross examination that the appellant wife stayed with him in a separate house shows that there is absolutely no desertion on the part of the appellant-wife. By conduct of the respondent himself it is clear that, it is he the respondent, who is guilty of desertion and the husband cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. The Court below has failed to consider contention of the wife that she was not permitted to enter the house when she came with her parents and panchas in the year 1992. The court below is not correct in holding that the appellant has failed to discharge her marital obligations when the respondent has failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion. The family court has committed an error in not considering the earlier judgment passed in MC No.103 of 1998 which was confirmed by this Court in MFA No.1744 of 2001. 6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the judgment passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that the court below has correctly appreciated all the materials on record and has reached to correct conclusions. There are no grounds for interference by this Court. 7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the court below has committed any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned judgment so as to call for interference by this Court? Our answer would be in the negative for the following reasons. 8. In the first instance, the appellant filed a maintenance petition in 1991. In March 1992 the respondent filed MC No.126 of 1993 for restitution of conjugal rights which was allowed and the appellant was directed to join the respondent to lead a married life. The appellant instead preferred MFA No.3307 of 1997 challenging the order directing restitution of conjugal rights. In the first instance, the appellant filed a maintenance petition in 1991. In March 1992 the respondent filed MC No.126 of 1993 for restitution of conjugal rights which was allowed and the appellant was directed to join the respondent to lead a married life. The appellant instead preferred MFA No.3307 of 1997 challenging the order directing restitution of conjugal rights. This Court, remitted the matter to the trial court and there is no further order in the said case. 9. Appellant filed complaint against the respondent and his parents which was registered in CC No.144 of 1993 and ultimately the respondent and his parents were acquitted on 01st December 1997. The respondent filed MC No.27 of 1996 for judicial separation and a decree for divorce. With the intervention of mediators and elders the dispute was settled. Accordingly, the appellant and the respondent led a married life. Again there was a dispute between the parties when the respondent sustained loss in his business and the appellant left the matrimonial home and went to Ballari. This is not disputed by the appellant either in her evidence or in the objections. Subsequently, the parties tried to settle the dispute through the elders and accordingly the respondent and her two sons were accommodated in one room of the house of respondent’s mother and the respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.700/- per month. This was agreed. However, thereafter, there was trespass by the appellant and her sons; suits were instituted and possession was taken by mother of the respondent by filing execution petition. 10. In the meantime, respondent filed MC No.103 of 1998 for dissolution of marriage which came to be dismissed which the respondent challenged in MFA No.1744 of 2011. The said appeal was disposed of directing the parties to approach the panchas for resolving the matter. However, the panchas did not intervene due to quarrelsome nature of the appellant which is borne out from the records. It is admitted by the respondent that she had filed two criminal complaints against the respondent and his parents for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and in both the cases, the respondent and his parents were acquitted. Appellant has clearly admitted that in 1984 she went to parental house and the respondent made several attempts to get her back. It is admitted by the respondent that she had filed two criminal complaints against the respondent and his parents for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and in both the cases, the respondent and his parents were acquitted. Appellant has clearly admitted that in 1984 she went to parental house and the respondent made several attempts to get her back. She has admitted that in 1991 the dispute arose between herself and respondent and she went to Ballari. She has admitted that she filed Criminal Misc. 198 of 1992 for maintenance. She had admitted filing of restitution petition by the husband and her challenging the restitution order before this Court. She has further stated that there was a compromise and she joined the respondent. She has admitted that she has given evidence in Criminal Misc. No.424 of 2007 stating that the relationship between herself and the respondent is strained since 1997. She has further stated according to her the relationship between herself and the respondent is strained from November 1998; and thereafter, they have never led a married life with each other. She has admitted that in OS No.345 of 2003 she has given evidence that, since 1998 the relationship between herself and her husband and in-laws is strained. The respondent has stated that since November 1998 she is residing separately and the relationship between herself and respondent is strained. In spite of the fact that she was living separately, she filed a criminal complaint against the husband and his parents for the offence under Section 498-A, 323, 506 read with section 34 IPC in 2004. The respondent has further admitted in cross examination that the respondent made several attempts to get her back to his house. It is gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case and several litigations fought between the parties that the respondent was put to mental cruelty. The appellant has admitted in her cross-examination that till then they have fought eighteen cases. The number of cases fought between the parties and the admitted fact that they are residing separately since November 1998 makes it clear that the appellant has deserted the respondent with an intention to put a permanent end to cohabitation. The various litigations fought between them makes it clear that their marriage has been irretrievably broken down beyond repair and absolutely there is no chance of reunion between them. 11. The various litigations fought between them makes it clear that their marriage has been irretrievably broken down beyond repair and absolutely there is no chance of reunion between them. 11. Admittedly, in the instant case, the parties are living separately for more than 14 years and they have fought several criminal and civil litigations and as such the marriage has broken down irretrievably and continuing of such marriage itself would amount to cruelty to both the parties, as correctly held by the court below. Therefore, it is just and necessary to dissolve the marriage of the appellant and respondent both on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 12. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the court below is justified in passing the impugned judgment and no grounds are made out for interference. There is no merit in any of the contentions sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the result, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.