JUDGMENT : Sangeet lodha, J. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2015 passed by the Family Court, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.97/08(25/2012) whereby the application preferred under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of the appellant Bhagwati Lal has been rejected. 2. Brief facts in the matter are that appellant preferred an application under Section 13 of he Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bhilwara stating therein that appellant entered into a wedlock with Smt. Sangeeta on 14.04.2000 at Kota according to Hindu rites and customs. The appellant and respondent were living in village Pure after their marriage and they were blessed with a female child from their wedlock. It was stated in the application that the respondent Smt. Sangeeta behaved normally in the initial days after the marriage but thereafter her behaviour turned cruel towards the applicant and his family members. The respondent-wife thereafter pressed for a demand to live separately. The appellant and respondent thereafter lived separately for some time, then respondent pressurized the appellant to shift to Kota and stay there only. The respondent-wife thereafter started quarreling with the appellant-husband for no reasons. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent, in order to, remarry, adopted a hostile behaviour towards the appellant and his family and for the purpose her Jija (brother-in-law) Tikam Chand was instigating her. The respondent on having been tutored by her brother-in-law Tikam Chand has foisted false case against the appellant in order to harass him. Further on 14.02.2006 the respondent left the matrimonial home and started living at Kota and thereafter at Biliya due to which the appellant was deprived of the cohabitation of her company. The respondent was also not fulfilling the social responsibilities and has deserted him for no reasons. 4. A case under domestic violence Act has been filed against the appellant on the false and baseless grounds. The respondent does not want to live with appellant. 5. A detailed reply was filed by the respondent-wife Sangeeta and it was admitted that after the marriage with appellant a girl child Rajnandini was born. In the reply, she submits that she was given beatings by the appellant and his family members including the sister-in-law and her husband. It was also submitted that behaviour of the respondent was never cruel towards the appellant and his family members. In the reply, she submits that she was given beatings by the appellant and his family members including the sister-in-law and her husband. It was also submitted that behaviour of the respondent was never cruel towards the appellant and his family members. She has denied that she ever wanted to remarry with somebody else, rather it is the appellant who has got an advertisement published in their community booklet i.e. 'Smarika' published by the Jingar Samaj produced on record wherein the details of the profile of the appellant has been mentioned. When the appellant failed to maintain respondent wife and their daughter properly and they were literally made to starve, she was forced to file a complaint at Women Security and Conciliation Centre, Police Station Bhilwara. She has further alleged that her mark-sheets of Class X, B.A. etc. have been taken in possession of the appellant and he has refused to return the same and due to which she is unable pursue her B.Ed. Course. She has further submitted that she was tortured for bringing less dowry and she was maltreated and also given beatings. The appellant and his family were always willing and forcing the respondent to live separately. The respondent has further submitted that appellant is earning about Rs. 18,000/- per month and after having turned the respondent out of the matrimonial house wanted to remarry and for this purpose an advertisement as stated above has also been published. A false allegation of having extra-marital affairs with her Jija (brother-in-law), just to defame her, has been leveled. There is no question of respondent having deserted the matrimonial home. Moreover, a design to kill her by throwing in the Maija Dam was also made by the appellant. When all the conciliation proceedings failed, a case for domestic violence was filed by her. 6. There is no question of respondent having deserted the matrimonial home. Moreover, a design to kill her by throwing in the Maija Dam was also made by the appellant. When all the conciliation proceedings failed, a case for domestic violence was filed by her. 6. In view of the submissions made above, the mediation proceedings were conducted and on failure of the same, the learned Family Court on 21.04.2010 framed five issues, which are as under: ^^& vk;k vÁkFkhZ;k us ÁkFkhZ ,oa mlds ifjokj tu ds lkFk ÁkFkZuk i= esa vafdrkuqlkj vyx jgus dh ekax dj] dksVk pydj jgus] yM+kbZ >xM+k djds rFkk thtk Vhdepan ds cgdkos esa vkdj >wBs eqdnes yxkdj Øwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k gS\ ÁkFkhZ 2 & vk;k vÁkFkhZ;k us fcuk fdlh ;qfr;qr ,oa ln~Hkkoh dkj.k ,oa vk/kkj ds fnuakd 14-02-2006 ls ÁkFkhZ dk ifjR;kx dj vyx fuokl dj jgh gS\ ÁkFkhZ 3 & vk;k ÁkFkhZ ,oa mlds ifjokjtu us vÁkFkhZ;k ds lkFk Øwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k rFkk vÁkFkhZ;k ,oa mldh iq=h dks tcju ?kj ls blfy, fudky fn;k rkfd og nwljk fookg dj lds rFkk ÁkFkhZ us fookg gsrq fofHkUu if=dkvksa esa foKkiu Hkh fn;k gS vkSj vÁkFkhZ;k etcwj gksdj vyx jg jgh gS\ vÁkFkhZ;k 4 & vk;k ÁkFkhZ us foi{kh;k dks fcuk ;qfr;qr dkj.k ,oa vf/kdkj ds nkEiR; lq[kksa ds mi;ksx o miHkksx ls oafpr dj j[kk gSA vÁkFkhZ;k 5 & vuqrks"k D;k gksxk\** 7. Thereafter, in evidence, statements of Bhagwati Lal and his mother Sajjan Devi were recorded in favour of the appellant and the statements of Sangeeta, Mamta Kanwar, Prakash Kanwar and Roopesh were recorded from the respondent side. Three documents i.e. 'Smarika' of Jingar Samaj, Bhilwara as A1 and two agreement letters as D1 and D2 were produced and exhibited on record. 8. Thereafter, after hearing the arguments on both the sides, learned Family Court have rejected the application preferred under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the appellant-applicant, holding all the issues from 1-4 having decided against the appellant. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Family Court has clearly erred while deciding the issue No.1 against the appellant as the respondent was harassing the appellant and his family members by fighting with the appellant and his family members without any reason. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned Family Court has clearly erred while deciding the issue No.1 against the appellant as the respondent was harassing the appellant and his family members by fighting with the appellant and his family members without any reason. The abnormal behaviour of the respondent towards the family members of the appellant was instigated by her Jija (brother-in-law) Tikam Chand who was the main instrument for creating unrest in their family. Every day on one pretext or the other, the respondent was quarreling with the appellant and his family and was forcing the appellant to live separately. The fact of living separately is fortified from the perusal of the two agreement letters which shows and suggest that for buying peace, the appellant has entered into such agreement and in pursuance of the same, he got a house on rent for respondent in Biliya and was paying Rs. 1500/- per month for the same. Further, as per the agreement, the mark-sheets etc. and ornaments were to be returned to her. The respondent has also agreed that she will never come to their ancestral house and will never meet her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Besides this she also agreed that she will not do any quarrel with appellant or their family members and will not disturb him in the office during duty hours. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant these instances are sufficient to constitute a ground for cruelty and the fact that the respondent is making a demand to live separately from the appellant's mother etc. is sufficient to bring home the ground of cruelty in his favour. 11. Learned counsel further submits that she has voluntarily left the matrimonial house on 14.02.2006 and has thereafter not returned and deprived him of the happy couple life and the reason behind is that the respondent wants to remarry to a different person. 12. Learned counsel has supported his arguments by a judgment passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1029/2002; Santosh Devi (Smt.) v. Prem Chand Saini; 2008(1) RLW 357. 13. In light of the above judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the appellant should have been allowed. 14. Appeal No.1029/2002; Santosh Devi (Smt.) v. Prem Chand Saini; 2008(1) RLW 357. 13. In light of the above judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act of the appellant should have been allowed. 14. The counsel has further submitted that the advertisement published in Souvenir ('Smarika'), Jingar Samaj has not been published at the behest of the appellant and he is not aware of the fact that as to who got it published, at least he has not submitted these details to the publisher of the 'Smarika' and, therefore, denies the factum of having got the advertisement published at the instance of the appellant. 15. He further submits that for incident which has taken place on 9th of August at the house of the respondent wherein it is alleged that the appellant wanted to make physical relationship with the respondent Smt. Sangeeta at the rented premises. The wild allegations leveled against the appellant are far from truth and the same are unrealistic. The statement of Smt. Sangeeta and Mamta Kanwar, Prakash Kanwar and Roopesh are far from truth being unrealistic. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that all the efforts to maintain the matrimonial home intact were done by the appellant but due to the cruel behaviour of the respondent, he had no option but to take resort for filing an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 17. The appellant as well as respondent are living separately for last more than 10 years and, therefore, there is an irretrievable break down of the marriage and there is no possibility of the appellant and the respondent to live together and the same is broken down beyond repair. In this view of the matter also, the divorce petition of the appellant be allowed on this ground. 18. To support this argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Anita Jain (Smt.) v. Rajendra Kumar Jain; D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.45/2000; 2010(1) RLW 485 (Raj.). 19. In this view of the matter also, the divorce petition of the appellant be allowed on this ground. 18. To support this argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Anita Jain (Smt.) v. Rajendra Kumar Jain; D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.45/2000; 2010(1) RLW 485 (Raj.). 19. Refuting the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the ill treatment meted out to the respondent by the appellant and his family members giving beatings and virtually forcing the respondent in the condition of starvation, the respondent had no choice but to proceed to the parental house. 20. The allegations of cruelty and to live separately is not only false and baseless, rather it is the mother-in-law or it is the mother of the appellant who was instrumental in forcing the respondent out of the matrimonial home and a compromise deed was filed for living separately at Biliya. She always wanted and forced her son (appellant) to get respondent out of their home and live separately. He further submits that the allegations of getting remarry squarely applies on the appellant which is fortified from the fact that an advertisement had been issued in "Smarika" published by Jingar Samaj, Bhilwara. A perusal of the details mentioned in the advertisement clearly and categorically shows that those details can be provided only and only by the appellant himself or somebody in close relationship with him, as such personal details are normally not available with anybody who is not in close relationship. He further submits that if the advertisement has been published without the consent of the applicant then appropriate legal proceedings should have been taken against the publisher of the "Smarika" but in the present case, the appellant has not done anything which only shows implied consent of the appellant in publication of such advertisement. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in normal circumstances, no legally wedded wife would like to leave her matrimonial home and live separately. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in normal circumstances, no legally wedded wife would like to leave her matrimonial home and live separately. He further submits that the incident of 9th August, 2015 which has been reported in the statements of respondent Sangeeta, Mamta Kanwar and Prakash Kanwar to the effect that the appellant wanted to had physical relationship during the pendency of the court cases reflects that character of the respondent is not good and he wanted to take the advantage of the situation and further the respondent has rightly resisted the same, clearly stating therein that she is prepared to make relationship during course of their matrimony and not otherwise. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the allegations of cruelty and desertion in the present case are not proved and, therefore, learned Family Court, Bhilwara has rightly rejected the application preferred by the appellant-husband. 23. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the parties and the entire record of the case. 24. An application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed on the ground of cruelty and desertion inasmuch as the respondent was forcing the appellant to live separately and for this purpose the reliance has been placed on two letters of agreement placed on record as D1 and D2. 25. A bare perusal of the contents of the letters of agreement aforesaid and the situation in which the same have been inscribed shows that the respondent, in order to buy a mental peace, has agreed to live separately. In the statement of respondent Smt. Sangeeta it has come on record that after birth of female child in May, 2005 her husband came to take her and their daughter after eight months. He took Sangeeta and her daughter to Amligarh where he was posted, where he kept them in a house but in seven months the appellant did not stay there for 7 days. When the respondent Sangeeta was facing crisis to survive and was unable to maintain herself and her daughter, she went to Police Station for lodging a complaint. Perhaps in these circumstances, in order to, avoid the legal complications, the appellant resorted to the method of entering into an agreement/compromise which are on record as D1 and D2. When the respondent Sangeeta was facing crisis to survive and was unable to maintain herself and her daughter, she went to Police Station for lodging a complaint. Perhaps in these circumstances, in order to, avoid the legal complications, the appellant resorted to the method of entering into an agreement/compromise which are on record as D1 and D2. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the view that the allegations that respondent was forcing her to live separately does not appear to be correct and, therefore, the ground of cruelty as well desertion on this count stands rejected. 26. The conditions mentioned in D1 and D2 also suggest that respondent was forced to live separately to fulfill the wish of the mother of the appellant as it has come on record that the treatment given to Smt. Sangeeta by the appellant and his family member was very bad, regular beatings were given to her, proper food was also not being given to her. The appellant and his family were also annoyed and unhappy for not giving the proper dowry in the marriage by the respondent and her family. 27. Therefore, in these circumstances, the judgment of Santosh Devi (Smt.) (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application in the facts of the present case. 28. As far as the contentions of remarriage is concerned, the advertisement in the "Smarika" of Jingar Samaj makes it apparent that it was the appellant who wanted to remarry and for the purpose he has given the advertisement. This fact also get fortifies from the conduct of the appellant as, if the advertisement is issued without his consent, then the appellant could have taken appropriate legal action against the publisher of the "Smarika". Since, no action against the publisher has been taken by the appellant, conclusively goes to show that the advertisement was published either on behalf of the appellant or with the tacit consent of the appellant. It further shows the minute details which are given in the advertisement are available either with the appellant himself or someone who is very close to him. Therefore, it leads to the conclusion that it was appellant who wanted to remarry not the respondent. 29. It further shows the minute details which are given in the advertisement are available either with the appellant himself or someone who is very close to him. Therefore, it leads to the conclusion that it was appellant who wanted to remarry not the respondent. 29. The contention with respect to the incident which occurred on 9th of august is concerned, a close reading of the statements of Sangeeta, Mamta Kanwar and Prakash Kanwar shows that the appellant visited the place of the respondent and was keen to make physical relationship but the same was refused by the respondent. We are of the view that there is nothing unnatural in the same as the refusal by the respondent in these circumstances was obviously to save herself from the future allegations regarding her character and other legal complications in the matter, therefore, to discard the probability of the appellant having visited the respondent asking for physical relationship cannot be ruled out in this case and cannot be termed unrealistic. 30. The other contentions with respect to Jija (brother-in-law) Tikam Chand instigating the respondent is concerned, the same have not been proved in any of the statements and the documents produced therein. Moreover, it has come in statement of Roopesh W/o Tikam Chand that Sangeeta was like daughter to Tikam Chand and she has no doubts over the conduct of her husband Tikam Chand and sister Sangeeta. Therefore, the finding arrived at of learned Family Court with respect to allegation of the cruelty against the respondent cannot be faulted with, and, therefore, the issue No.1 is correctly decided against the appellant. 31. As far as the issues No.2 to 4 are concerned, as we have held in preceding paras, the respondent is not living separately of her own will, since an agreement was entered into between both the parties, the terms of which forced the respondent to live separately. A probable reason may be to avoid the criminal complaint being filed by the respondent. Besides this, there is no evidence on record which shows or suggests that the respondent was cruel towards the appellant and his family and she wanted to remarry. The evidence on record is rather otherwise, in view of advertisement for remarriage on behalf of the appellant, it is apparent that appellant wanted to remarry, and not the respondent as alleged. 32. The evidence on record is rather otherwise, in view of advertisement for remarriage on behalf of the appellant, it is apparent that appellant wanted to remarry, and not the respondent as alleged. 32. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, it is the appellant himself who is responsible for living separately, depriving himself of the company of respondent-wife Smt. Sangeeta. 33. We are also not impressed by the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant of dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable broke down of marriage, as the same is not available under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That apart in view of the findings arrived at as above the appellant himself is living separately of his own volition, the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Anita Jain (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 34. For the aforementioned reasons, the appellant is not entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion both. 35. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2015 passed by the learned Family Court, Bhilwara is not required to be interfered with. The appeal therefore fails and the same is hereby dismissed.