JUDGMENT Per Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. These are two appeals, being First Appeal No. 13 of 2016, Smt. Seema Vs. Shiv Singh Negi and First Appeal No. 14 of 2016, Smt. Seema Vs. Shiv Singh Negi. 2. In the former appeal, the appellant wife has challenged the judgment dated 16.12.2015, whereby, the Family Court has decreed the Suit, being Suit No. 118 of 2013, filed by the respondent Shiv Singh Negi, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. 3. While, in the connected Appeal, being First Appeal No. 14 of 2016, filed by the wife, challenges have been given by the appellant wife to the judgment dated 17th December, 2015, whereby her Original Application No. 91 of 2011, Smt. Seema Vs. Shiv Singh Negi under Section 9 has been rejected. 4. The factual backdrop in both the appeals are identical, hence, for the purposes of brevity, these appeals are being decided together. 5. The case of the appellant wife in the appeals is that she was married with the respondent in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals on 19th April, 2000, and out of the wedlock, a son Anshul was born who has been forcefully kept by the wife. Primarily, the divorce petition was filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion which was registered as Suit No. 117 of 2011. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 6th August, 2011, had dismissed the Suit holding thereof that the Suit was not maintainable in view of the bar created by law and issue no. 4 pertaining to the jurisdiction was decided against the respondent by the judgment dated 17th May, 2013, and High Court quashed the findings recorded by the District Judge in its order dated 6th August, 2011, while deciding issue No. 4. 6. Thereafter, the plaint was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 C.P.C. to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the present petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was instituted by the respondent before the Family Court, Rishikesh, Dehradun. 7. In the petition, thus filed, the wife submitted that out of the wedlock, one son Anshul was born, who was at the time of presentation of the petition for dissolution of marriage, was 11 years of age. 8. 7. In the petition, thus filed, the wife submitted that out of the wedlock, one son Anshul was born, who was at the time of presentation of the petition for dissolution of marriage, was 11 years of age. 8. The primary ground for desertion was that the respondent wife is of extrovert nature and often moves around freely without prior consent and permission from the husband or other elderly persons of the family. A certain misunderstanding and over ambitiousness increased whereby the wife wanted that the property belonging to the parents may be transferred to the wife. When the same was not acceded to, the situation of the family gradually started worsening. According to the husband, the wife started harassing the parents for transfer of the land in her name. She wanted the parents to transfer their land in her favour which was yet again not accepted by the family members which increased misunderstanding amongst themselves. 9. The allegation of the husband was that often, now and then, the appellant/wife was seen in an objectionable situation alongwith her brother-in-law and her continuance with the brother-in-law in the said relationsnhip was doubtful as it goes to show that she had some illicit relationship with him as she was found in a doubtful situation with him. 10. According to the husband, the wife was an Aaganwari Karyakarti who was receiving a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m. as an honorarium. Her income gave her a sense of superiority complex and she tried to develop superiority complex as against the husband. 11. The case of the appellant before the Court below was a case under Section 13 (i) (i-b) that the alleged pregnancy which the appellant claimed to be was not a pregnancy which has occurred because of him, because, according to him, for last more than two years, they didn’t have any physical relationship which in itself constitutes to be a ground of desertion. The wife, in response, submitted that for the last 11 years from the date of the marriage, she was residing with the respondent and is teaching in Vijay Laxmi School, Rani Pokhari in Class V. 12. The learned Trial Court, on exchange of pleadings, framed the following issues:- “(i) D;k oknh i=koyh ds okn i= eas fn;s vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh lhek ls rykd ysus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ;fn gk¡] rks dkj.k\ (ii) vuqrks”k \^^ 13. The learned Trial Court, on exchange of pleadings, framed the following issues:- “(i) D;k oknh i=koyh ds okn i= eas fn;s vfHkdFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh lhek ls rykd ysus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ;fn gk¡] rks dkj.k\ (ii) vuqrks”k \^^ 13. The plaintiff in support of his evidence placed reliance on the information as given by Bal Vikas Adhikari, the copy of the High Court’s order dated 17th May, 2013, the decision of the District Judge dated 6th August, 2011, and then, he recorded the statement of PW4, PW2, PW3 and PW1. Similarly, the appellant appeared before the Court below and recorded her statement as DW1 and almost made an effort to deny the allegation made in the plaint, but the denial itself was vague and not specific in view of the Order 8 Rules 5 and 6 of the CPC 14. The learned Trial Court, while considering the respective evidences, recorded the finding to the effect that as to whether wife has committed any cruelty or desertion as against her husband and whether she has misbehaved with the parents by quarreling and abusing them. 15. The main dispute which has arisen is that on 10th April, the defendant appellant after quarrelling with the parents of the respondent, after taking his son Anshul, has left for her brother-in-law’s place. The said act was not informed to any person in the family. Hence, since she has deserted on 10th April, 2007, the allegation of cruelty against her stand established and, according to the husband, the decree of divorce as granted by the Court below was just and proper. 16. To justify her efforts, the appellant submitted that on 17th June, 2009, after the dissertation on 10th April, 2007, mother of the appellant and other respectable persons visited the home of the respondent but he declined to join her back. In the cross examination before the Court below was held on 15th September, 2014, in the cross examination, in paper 29- ka/4, it has been admitted by the appellant that she used to quarrel with the mother and was living separately from the parents. 17. On perusal of statement of PW1 Shiv Singh, he has admitted in his cross examination as held on 04.08.2014 that he has signed the affidavit paper 29-ka which is evident from the statement annexed as Annexure A2 to the affidavit in appeal, he admits signature. 18. 17. On perusal of statement of PW1 Shiv Singh, he has admitted in his cross examination as held on 04.08.2014 that he has signed the affidavit paper 29-ka which is evident from the statement annexed as Annexure A2 to the affidavit in appeal, he admits signature. 18. Appellant in her statement as DW1 admitted that she was living separately since 15.08.2008, this fact also established by admission in cross examination, nor it is a case of appellant that ever after 15.08.2008, she ever resided together with respondent. Intention of desertion was also apparent from the fact that paper No. 27-C2, the complaint was jointly filed. 19. The learned Trial Court held that from all the reasons as pleaded which have contributed to the cruelty was that wife always forced upon the respondent to live separately from his parents. 20. To examine the issue of cruelty, in the affidavit, in examination-in-chief, it was specifically stated by the husband that there were various misunderstandings which attracted Section 13 (i-a). The learned Trial Court, while considering the effect of the affidavit, paper No. 48 ka/2, has observed that respondent has admitted that the main reason of dispute between them was that the husband did not accept her request to move separately from the parents. While dealing with the issue of desertion, the Court held that the appellant has deserted the respondent for last more than two years. While dealing with the statement of respondent that the appellant is not pregnant from him because they had no relationship for last two years. The Court, while considering the issue of desertion, also observed in para 29 of the judgment that in the affidavit filed in examination-inchief, paper No. 29-Ga, the respondent had specifically given details of number of efforts to bring back wife from her parents’ house. 21. He submitted in his affidavit in examination-in-chief, the appellant had submitted on 17th June, 2009, he went to take the defendant but she refused. The learned Trial Court has held that while considering the affidavit 41-ka, submitted by the appellant, as in her examination-in-chief, which is available on record in which she has stated in her cross examination, she has admitted that on 06/06/2009, six or seven persons from the husband’s home came to the sister’s place but nothing succeeded. The learned Trial Court has held that while considering the affidavit 41-ka, submitted by the appellant, as in her examination-in-chief, which is available on record in which she has stated in her cross examination, she has admitted that on 06/06/2009, six or seven persons from the husband’s home came to the sister’s place but nothing succeeded. Thus, the Court came to the conclusion that the issue of cruelty and desertion has stand established because this proves two things that she was residing with parents and secondly efforts to bring back also failed. 22. One very crucial aspect which has been dealt by the Court below for the purposes of granting the decree of divorce to the respondent has been dealt by the Court by deciding issue no. 2 to the effect that apart from findings recorded on issue No. 1 on desertion and cruelty, the factum of living separately for the period more than two years, prior to the filing of the suit, was established. 23. It was also held out that the appellant wife has deserted the plaintiff respondent forever and for the said aspect she has already taken a decision which is apparent from a joint affidavit which has been filed before the Court below, paper No. 27-Ga, in which, there exists signature of the plaintiff and the defendant and their Advocates which is in accordance with the provision contained under Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. A compromise was settled whereby the appellant has expressed that she wants a decree of divorce subject to the condition of payment to the amount as settled in the affidavit, paper No. 27Ga-2, and she has claimed for the alimony of Rs. 8 lacs as permanent alimony. 24. It is not that enough because subsequently the appellant wife in her affidavit, Paper No. 48-Ga, had admitted the submission of the affidavit, paper No. 27-Ga, that in case if she is paid Rs.8 lacs as permanent alimony, then, she is agreeable for the dissolution of marriage. Both these affidavits were placed on record before the Court below on 27th April, 2014, and in a cross examination with plaintiff held on 15th September, 2014, the defendantadmitted the fact that the plaintiff has accepted that he will pay Rs. 8 lacs, in which, the plaintiff appellant was present on 15th September, 2014. 25. Both these affidavits were placed on record before the Court below on 27th April, 2014, and in a cross examination with plaintiff held on 15th September, 2014, the defendantadmitted the fact that the plaintiff has accepted that he will pay Rs. 8 lacs, in which, the plaintiff appellant was present on 15th September, 2014. 25. Thus, the Court has rightly held that as the appellant wife has wrongly deserted the respondent for a period ofmore than two years, hence the respondent was entitled fordecree of divorce by invoking Section 13 (I) (i-a) (i-b) and, secondly, the Court, while considering the impact of settlement, paper No. 27 GA-2, has held that since wife was agreeable to severement of relationship by submitting the affidavit under certain terms and conditions by acceptance of Rs.8 lacs and dissolving the marriage, this Court feels that looking to the admission made by the parties before the Court below whereby the appellant herself has expressed her willingness to get the marriage dissolved after accepting the alimony of Rs.8 lacs, the marriage under the aforesaid condition deserves to be dissolved, and thus, the learned Trial Court has not committed any error in passing with the decree and dissolving the marriage dated 19th April, 2000. 26. Thus, the Court directs that the plaintiff respondent would pay the agreed amount of permanent alimony of Rs.8 lacs to the appellant. As soon as the said amount is paid, the marriage between dated 19th April, 2000, between the appellant and the respondent will stand dissolved subject to the condition that the said amount has not already been paid. The respondent will pay the amount of alimony within a period of four weeks from today. 27. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed subject to the above observations. First Appeal No. 14 of 2016 28. This is the connected appeal, which has been filed by the wife, who is the appellant and plaintiff before the Court below. Her application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 17th December, 2015. First Appeal No. 14 of 2016 28. This is the connected appeal, which has been filed by the wife, who is the appellant and plaintiff before the Court below. Her application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 17th December, 2015. Since, the marriage between them has been dissolved in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between them under Order 23 Rule 3, which was submitted by way of affidavit before the Court below where Section 13 proceedings were pending and which has been settled in the connected appeal, being First Appeal No. 13 of 2016. This appeal too stands dismissed in the light of the observations made in First Appeal No. 13 of 2016.