JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The plaintiff-appellant before this Court is the husband, who seeks decree for dissolution of marriage which has been solemnized on 27.11.2009 between the appellant and the respondent, by filing a Suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court. 2. The brief contention of the appellant-husband in his plaint was that he was married with the respondent at Dehradun and on account of the cruelty being exercised by the respondent-wife, there was difficulty in consummation of marriage, due to non-coordination of the thought process too, as a result of which no issues were born out of the wedlock. 3. The appellant-husband contended that looking to the pathetic condition of the family, where both the lungs of his father had been damaged, coupled with the fact that the mother of the appellant since being of a religious temperament normally remains hurry in worshipping God, he is left all alone in the family to take care of his father, mother, himself and all the domestic affairs. 4. After the marriage being solemnized with the respondent, the appellant thought that with the induction of respondent into the family of the appellant, it would be bringing some respite to the family as she, would be in a position to help the family members to meet their day-to-day affairs and would provide assistance to him by proving to be a helping hand. But after some time of marriage, it was realized by the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife, who is a lady with quarrelsome temperament and she does not want to continue in the matrimonial home and often used to allege that she does not like to stay in the family of the in-laws and she wants to go to her parent’s home as she alleges that the environment of family is not as per her expectation. 5. Another reason, which she has developed for not continuing with the matrimony, and thereby avoiding the company of the husband was that she contended that she intends to pursue her studies and for the said purpose, she felt that she would be able to complete her studies in a better manner by staying at her parent’s home. According to the appellant-husband, if a person is desirous to study, logically it could be done at any place. According to the appellant-husband, if a person is desirous to study, logically it could be done at any place. With the change of environment with the change of ambiance with the in-laws or with the parents, the gravity and seriousness in the studies are not going to be material effect. But looking to the intention of the respondent-wife and the reason assigned by her to study, in which the husband contended that the husband did not want to create any impediment and always wanted to support her, he voluntarily agreed in the wife’s proposal by accepting the same and sending her to his in-laws to pursue her studies. 6. But the husband was rightly apprehending that looking to the past incidents, wherein the respondent-wife has always shown her derogations in continuing with the family and domestic affairs, he always had a notion that if she is permitted to reside with the parents under the garb of pursuing her studies, it would be difficult for the husband to retrieve her back to the matrimonial family. He further submits that the reason which has been developed by the wife for parting away of the company of the husband is not her own thought process but rather, it was the conspired process which has been infused by the parents of the wife, and husband submits that it could not be ruled out that it was the parents of the wife who wanted to ruin the domestic life of their daughter. 7. Husband’s case was further that whenever he had made efforts to bring his wife back in matrimonial home, she accompanied her mother along with 4-5 persons and created scenes and tried to develop a situation so that somehow the issue of her company with the husband to his home may be avoided. In that process respondent-wife also used to humiliate the husband in public so that he may not pressurize her to join the husband’s matrimonial home. 8. During these phases of life, it was ultimately realized by the wife in February 2011, that she has conceived and was pregnant and she suggested her husband that in order to protect and carry the pregnancy, it would be advisable that she should continue to live in her parent’s home. Consequently the respondent-wife, according to the husband, continued to reside in her parent’s home for one month. Consequently the respondent-wife, according to the husband, continued to reside in her parent’s home for one month. According to appellant-husband, it has come to his knowledge that while the respondent-wife was staying in her parent’s home the respondent-wife has aborted herself without the consent of the husband. On objection being raised by the husband, the case as developed by the wife was that the abortion was due to natural abortion and it has not been conducted by any medical aid or external aid. 9. After learning about the same on 22.03.2011 husband went to take back his wife from her matrimonial home and brought her back. But since she refused to perform any domestic work and she created difficulties due to her attitude while staying in her in-laws home. It could be said that according to the husband that the cruelty may not be apparent by any incident, which could be quoted as an example but it could also be revealed from the conduct and the manner in which the respondent-wife used to carry herself amongst the members of the in-laws family. 10. On receipt of notices, the wife has put in appearance and denied the plaint allegation, only accepting the fact that she was married with the appellant on 27.11.2009. She contended that her husband is an escapist and he instead of facing the responsibilities of matrimonial life he wants to run away from the responsibility by levelling false allegation against the wife. Though she admit that the mother of the appellant happens to be a religious nature but she contended that for making harmonious matrimony, the appellant does not have any role rather the conduct of the partners to the marriage, who can built up a good home. 11. She submitted that looking to the conduct of the appellant-husband he lacks intent to have company of the wife, there is no mental compatibility, there is no affection existing and thus she contended that these things could be developed by an understanding by living together instead of escaping from the responsibilities. 12. Further, she submitted that in any matrimonial relationship, it is the husband and wife, who ought to have a responsibility to share their affection and concern and share whatsoever things are possible which they cannot otherwise share within other person. 12. Further, she submitted that in any matrimonial relationship, it is the husband and wife, who ought to have a responsibility to share their affection and concern and share whatsoever things are possible which they cannot otherwise share within other person. She submits that her expression towards her husband that she wants to study was a honorous expression and according to the perception of the wife, if such an honorous expression is given by the wife to study, it ought to have been accepted by the husband as it is a duty casted upon him and by not accepting the proposal for study, it would always be a shameful act. 13. She denied the fact that she was sent by the in-laws to her parent’s home just to make her more comfortable with them and she may resume her matrimonial life in a coordinated manner. 14. With regard to allegations raised by the husband pertaining to abortion, which the husband contended to have been committed by the wife without his consent, she only admits the part of the pleadings to the effect that no doubt that she conceived and became pregnant but with a rider that the abortion which has occurred was natural and was not forced by wife. 15. She submitted that the husband is a person of a weak conviction as he lacks decision making capability and he is rather swayed by the decisions which are imposed by the parents and other family members which affects the self assessment capacity of the husband. Because his actions are regulated by the decisions of the other persons, hence she contended that the allegation and discord or faction affection between husband and wife is not serious enough which would call for a dissolution of marriage because the differences which have been created are still retrievable. The institution of marriage should not be shattered as these small misunderstandings which could be repaired by joint efforts. 16. The wife further submitted that she does not want to level false allegations against her husband and she admitted the fact that her husband in principle is a person of good character and aptitude, but he has been divided into two factions and unable to decide whether he has to act by the decision imposed by the parents or has to accede the company of the wife. Hence, he is in a state of fix between two sources of life. The wife further submitted that she often tried to make her husband understand that the husband should try to understand emotional bondage which the wife carries for him and she further requested that the husband should try to understand what basically the wife expects from a husband and thus she contended that the steps taken by the husband by making allegations against wife in the proceedings under Section 13 for dissolution of marriage was not an advisable act. 17. She submitted that since under the Hindu mythology, the Satpati is a symbol of togetherness for seven reincarnations and it cannot be severed on trifle issues. She pleaded that she swears by God that if the husband takes his own stand in the decision making process, relating to domestic affairs she would forever discontinue living in the parent’s home and continue to live with the husband. 18. She also alleges that it is rather not the husband who was spoiling the domestic life but rather the influence of the mother, which is dominant upon the husband and is instrumental in spoiling the matrimony. She submitted that looking to the behaviour of the family members of the husband, where the family members misbehaved with the female and in particular, the wife, she submits that such type of family which does not pay any respect to the ladies, who are supposed to be treated as to be “Devis”, under the Hindu mythology, such family never flourish and thus pleaded that the family members of the husband has failed to maintain the balance between the husband and wife. 19. She submits that she in her life has chosen only one husband for the first time and she is devoted to him with all her sincerity and for all her life. She submitted that she cannot even in the remotest thing of giving of getting decree of divorce against the husband. Thus she submitted that she does not want to take divorce and wants to continue to reside within the husband’s home to whom she loves unboundedly. 20. The wife submitted that the truth is that on 12.04.2011, the story as developed by the husband that wife has deserted him, is absolutely false whereas rather truth remains that the in-laws of the wife had left her at her parent’s home on 12.04.2011. 20. The wife submitted that the truth is that on 12.04.2011, the story as developed by the husband that wife has deserted him, is absolutely false whereas rather truth remains that the in-laws of the wife had left her at her parent’s home on 12.04.2011. She pleaded that when after a week when she tried to contact husband’s home on telephone, requesting them to take her back she submits that the husband postponed the matter of taking her back to the matrimonial home one day after another. Gradually this postponement of revival of matrimonial relationship resulted into filing of suit for dissolution of marriage, where as per the wife, conduct of husband was to avoid the company of the wife. 21. She submitted that she even asked the husband that in case if he has shortage of time to come to take her from her parents home, she herself can join the matrimonial home but that was not acceded to nor it was responded by husband. She submitted that on asking the husband to take her back and on offer by the wife that she is willing to come back on her own, the husband took an excuses under the pretext that looking to the attitude of the family members towards the wife, it would not be conducive for her to come on her own as the family members may misbehave with her. 22. The wife has taken a plea that though there were no desertion on her part but the fact that on 12.04.2011 when she was thrown out was forceful act of the husband and his family members when they deliberately dropped her at her parent’s home, hence looking to the date of filing of the Suit for dissolution of marriage and the alleged date of desertion, the statutory period for filing of the petition for invoking Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion is not made out. She submitted that she is a career oriented lady. She wants to study. She has completed her M.A. (English) and after completing her B.Ed, she wants to be engaged in any school as teacher by adopting it as her career but the same is tried to be obstructed by the family members of the husband. 23. She submitted that she is a career oriented lady. She wants to study. She has completed her M.A. (English) and after completing her B.Ed, she wants to be engaged in any school as teacher by adopting it as her career but the same is tried to be obstructed by the family members of the husband. 23. She submitted that it is not the atrocious act of the wife resulting into filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. She contended that looking at the act and conducts of the family members of the husband rather they are responsible to be charged with the allegations of domestic violence. 24. While the proceedings were pending the wife filed an application under Section 27 praying for the disposal of the property said to have been exchanged between the husband and wife during the marriage. Thus she filed an application paper No. 63A under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein she gave the detail of the property by monetarily determining it as to be Rs. 10.00 lacs. 25. The said application was objected by the appellant, alleging thereof that whatsoever detail inventory has been given to the property contended to have been exchanged is over exaggerated and denied it to have been received the item which has been shown by the wife in the list annexed with paper 63-A. 26. Based on the aforesaid pleadings between the parties, learned trial Court framing the following issues: 1- D;k foi{kh }kjk ;kph ds lkFk] tSlk fd ;kfpdk ds fofHkUu pj.kksa esa vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS] Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k x;kA 2- D;k ;kph ekaxk x;k vuqrks’k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 27. To support his contention, the appellant-husband appeared in the witness box and recorded his statement as PW-1 and respondent-wife appeared in the witness box and recorded her statement as DW1. The husband filed documentary evidence by way of paper no. 18 Ga to 15 which include with it the medical report. The receipts of expenditure incurred in the treatment and pathological report, complaint submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun by the husband, letter written to RMSI Pvt. Limited and a certificate issued on 21.12.2011,.the documents pertaining to the treatment of the father in law of the wife etc. 18 Ga to 15 which include with it the medical report. The receipts of expenditure incurred in the treatment and pathological report, complaint submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun by the husband, letter written to RMSI Pvt. Limited and a certificate issued on 21.12.2011,.the documents pertaining to the treatment of the father in law of the wife etc. The wife also submitted the documents in relation to the receipts of various bills of the articles, which was given at the time of marriage to the in-laws family. 28. Learned Trial Court found that apart from the fact that in order to properly from the issues as there were three vital disputes between the parties which was to be decided; for example:- (a) Commissioning of cruelty against one another; (b) As to whether there had been desertion; (c) As to whether what would be the manner of settlement of Section 27? No other specific issue has been framed by the learned trial Court. 29. It is an established proposition and even on bare reading of Section 13 when the Hindu Marriage Act deals with the dissolution of marriage on various grounds given under Section 13 and if a party to the matrimonial disputes if in his pleadings raises existence of any these grounds for dissolution of marriage, each set of grounds contained under Section 13 for dissolution of marriage, it requires the framing of separate issue which requires a consideration of a separate list of evidence so that the parties to the dispute may be in a position to establish their respective case. The existence or non existence of the allegations pleaded and sought to be pressed upon for the divorce according to the decree of divorce has to be pleaded, it has to be proved by evidence on the basis of which issue could be decided. 30. Despite of the fact that there had been rival contentions in the pleadings but very vague issues have been framed by the learned trial Court and on its precise reading, it could be said that it was only confined to the issue of cruelty. As a matter of fact there was no issue framed pertaining to the desertion. 31. 30. Despite of the fact that there had been rival contentions in the pleadings but very vague issues have been framed by the learned trial Court and on its precise reading, it could be said that it was only confined to the issue of cruelty. As a matter of fact there was no issue framed pertaining to the desertion. 31. Both cruelty and desertion have got a different platform and different basis and different reasoning and different evidences, which a party is requires to be proved to get a decree of either of the grounds. If procedural issue of rift between the party is not framed, it would be deemed that the party to the litigation never had an opportunity to address on the issue or to adduce its evidence and hence such type of judgment in the absence of non framing an appropriate issue would never be treated as to be a decision on the issues after providing on an opportunity to the parties. Such type of decision cannot be permitted as to be judgment because the judgment requires altogether a different element of consideration of a judicious decision to be rendered by the Court of law which is lacking in the instant case. When despite of counter pleadings of desertion if issue is not framed and finding is retrieved by the Court, it would amount to be a perverse judgment, without judicious application of mind. 32. Even on the perusal of the record and finding on issue no. 1, pertaining to cruelty, we feel that under the common aptitude of a judicious decision making process the findings thus arrived at by the learned family Court is cursory in nature without appreciating the respective case in its true perspective and even without considering the evidences which was led by the parties to support their cases. Mechanically, coming to a conclusion after considering the rival contentions without the Court having contributed its rational or indulging itself to the analytical study of the respective cases, we feel is not a judgment at all in the eye of law. It is rather an eye wash and that cannot be sustained, when a crucial issue of continuance of a relationship of husband and wife is under consideration before the Court of law. 33. The finding on issue no. It is rather an eye wash and that cannot be sustained, when a crucial issue of continuance of a relationship of husband and wife is under consideration before the Court of law. 33. The finding on issue no. 1 while determining cruelty, primarily has been confined on the controversy of the non-cooperation between husband and wife, which cannot be a sole ground or basis to arrive about the commissioning of cruelty. Learned family Court under the garb of deciding of issue no. 2, which only deals with as to whether and what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to has decided Section 27, whereby the same has been allowed and the direction has been issued to the appellant to return back the same to the wife. 34. These too parts of the judgment runs contrary to one another for the reason that if the Court proceeds to deny the decree under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act meaning thereby no decree is framed in relation to relief claimed, as it is denied by dismissing the suit. If there is no decree awarding by Court in consonance to relief claimed by the husband, then only under Section 27 of disposal of property comes into consideration which could then only be made part of decree. The Court while rendering the same judgment cannot not simultaneously granting the relief under Section 27 because Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under :- “27 Disposal of property. —In any proceeding under this Act, the court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.” 35. The provisions of Section 27 ancillary to the provisions of the decree of divorce, when the legislature as provided to constitute Section 27, as to be the part of the decree meaning thereby there has had to be an existing decree of which Section 27 can be made as a part. Section 27 in itself independently cannot constitute as a decree because Section 27 uses the word “such provision” in the decree. Section 27 in itself independently cannot constitute as a decree because Section 27 uses the word “such provision” in the decree. In the instant case, since principal decree sought for has been denied the consequences of denial of decree would be that there ought not to have be and under Section 27 of the order directing the husband to return the goods. 36. Thus, the appeal succeeds. Impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned family Court to decide the matter afresh after framing the appropriate issues and considering the evidence to be adduced by the parties. However, before passing, we feel it necessary to request the learned Family Court to decide the case expeditiously, in the light of the provisions contained under Section 21-B. 37. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 01.12.2014 in O.S. No. 380 of 2011 “Sanjay Kumar Vs. Smt. Sanghmitra Rawal” is hereby set aside. No order as to cost.