JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/wife has filed this appeal under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). She is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru in M.C. No. 59/2015 under Section 13(1)(i-a) (i-b) of the Act filed by the respondent/husband seeking divorce and to dissolve marriage which took place on 03.03.2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent having solemnized their marriage at Gayathri Kalyana Mantapa, Tumakuru on 03.03.2014 in terms of Hindu customs. The alleged allegations are that appellant resided with the respondent in his house only for a period of 6 months. Appellant abruptly left the respondent’s house in the 1st week of September and settled in her parents house. Repeated requests by the respondent, appellant did not heed. In fact in the 2nd week of October, respondent approached appellant in her parental house and requested her to join him for which she refused to join him. So also parents of the appellant also refused to send her saying that she is suffering from breathing problem. When things stood thus, panchayats were conveyed to settle the score among the appellant and respondent which went in vain. In this background, respondent issued a legal notice to the appellant on 05.03.2015 asking her to join him. Appellant had given reply alleging various allegations against respondent and his parents like appellant did not do her household work and she was adamant. Further, her demand was that the respondent has to make necessary arrangement to stay at Bengaluru etc. 3. After receipt of appellant’s reply to notice, respondent presented petition before the Family Court at Tumakuru seeking divorce and to dissolve the marriage among the respondent and appellant. Court below proceeded to pass judgment and decree in favour of the respondent while allowing his petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) (i-b) of the Act while dissolving the marriage solemnized on 03.03.2014 between respondent and appellant. It was also ordered that appellant is not entitled to maintenance or permanent alimony from the respondent. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Court below dated 19.09.2016, appellant has presented this appeal. 4. In support of appellant’s appeal, she has contended that mere leaving the company of the house does not amount to any cruelty. It was also ordered that appellant is not entitled to maintenance or permanent alimony from the respondent. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Court below dated 19.09.2016, appellant has presented this appeal. 4. In support of appellant’s appeal, she has contended that mere leaving the company of the house does not amount to any cruelty. It may be a ground for grant of divorce under the provisions of desertion. Therefore, reasoning of the Court below that appellant had left the company of the respondent which amounts to cruelty is liable to be set-aside. It was further contended that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home by the act and conduct of the respondent. In the absence of necessary material, Court below has erred in concluding that the appellant had left the matrimonial home on her own without appreciating the reasons for living the matrimonial home. It is also contended that marriage took place on 03.03.2014 whereas the divorce petition was presented on 25.03.2015 on the ground of desertion having regard to the fact that it was just one year and few days in presenting divorce petition from the date of marriage. Therefore, Court below should have rejected petition at threshold on the score that for the purpose of entertaining divorce petition, there must be desertion for continuous period of 2 years. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that as regards issue no. 5 for payment of maintenance to the appellant, has not been dealt by the Court below with reference to the material available. Merely appellant is a graduate and she can get any job to earn her livelihood and intends to shift to Bengaluru to earn her livelihood, would not suffice in refusing to grant payment of maintenance or permanent alimony. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment and decree of the Court below and vehemently relied on Ex.P.4 - reply to the notice wherein appellant has admitted various issues like leaving matrimonial home with a demand that respondent has to make necessary arrangements to live separately from his parents and to settle at Bengaluru instead of staying at Tumakuru, since both of them are working at Bengaluru. It was also contended that appellant admitted that even though both of them are working at Bengaluru, while traveling from Tumakuru to Bengaluru they were traveling separately by bus and train. The attitude of the appellant in not cooperating with the respondent and his parents are evident from her own admission in her reply to the notice read with her evidence RW-1. Court below has taken various issues relating to cruelty meted out to the respondent at the hands of the appellant in not cooperating in the day-to-day affairs as well as in not discharging her duties as wife and daughter-in-law of the matrimonial home. Hence, no interference is called for. 7. None appears for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Court below framed points for consideration which reads as under: 1. Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent has cruelly ill-treated him? 2. Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent has deserted him? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of the marriage as sought? 4. Whether the respondent is entitled for maintenance or alimony? If so, what is quantum? 5. What order? 9. Respondent in support of his divorce petition examined himself as PW-1 and produced documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.6. Similarly, on behalf of appellant, she has examined on her own and RW-2 Rangamma stated to be relative of the appellant and relied on Exs.R.1 to R.7. For the purpose of examining whether respondent had faced cruelty at the hands of the appellant, evidence of PW-1 read with RW-1 and notice and reply to notice - Exs.P.3 and P.4 are suffice. Court below has rightly appreciated that respondent has faced cruelty at the hands of the appellant as appellant had admitted reasons for leaving matrimonial home that respondent and his parents were harassing appellant at her matrimonial home whereas the appellant with reference to her own version stated that she used to leave Tumakuru in the morning and go back in the late evening after completing her job at Bengaluru. Therefore, question of any harassment is not supported by any corroborative evidence. That apart, appellant’s demand is to settle at Bengaluru with the respondent which was one of the demand while leaving the matrimonial home. Therefore, question of any harassment is not supported by any corroborative evidence. That apart, appellant’s demand is to settle at Bengaluru with the respondent which was one of the demand while leaving the matrimonial home. Further, it is evident that appellant was economically independent as she was working at Bengaluru and earning sufficient money which has resulted in ignoring her husband – respondent and her in-laws at matrimonial home. The contention of the appellant that divorce petition ought to have been rejected at the threshold as appellant has not deserted the respondent for continuous period of 2 years so as to entertain divorce petition, is not tenable in view of principles laid down by the later decisions wherein statutory period of 2 years continuously leaving separately has been diluted. Having regard to the evidence of appellant read with reply to the notice suffice that respondent has faced cruelty as well as desertion by the appellant. Therefore, no interference is called for. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent heavily relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Narendra vs. K. Meena decided in C.A. No. 3253/2008 dated 06.10.2016 wherein Supreme Court was pleased to appraise relating to cruelty at Matrimonial home. Para-11 of the said judgment which is relevant reads as under: “The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get separated from his family. The evidence shows that the family was virtually maintained from the income of the Appellant husband. It is not a common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son of India to get separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family. A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, whey they become old and when they have either no income or have a meager income. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family. In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her. In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that merely for monetary considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her husband separated from his family. The averment of the Respondent was to the effect that the income of the Appellant was also spent for maintaining his family. The said grievance of the Respondent is absolutely unjustified. A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in Indian culture and ethos. There is no other reason for which the Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from the family the sole reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant. Unfortunately, the High Court considered this to be a justifiable reason. In the opinion of the High Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see that the income of her husband is used for her and not for the family members of the Respondent husband. We do not see any reason to justify the said view of the High Court. As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income. The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of cruelty.” 11. The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of cruelty.” 11. The above factual aspects read with the case on hand are identical like marriage, desertion, harassment in a Hindu family. In the present case also, respondent being the only son to his parents, he cannot leave them at Tumkaru and settle at Bengaluru as per the wishes of the appellant. Settling at Bengaluru may be expensive so also when respondent has residential accommodation at Tumakuru where his parents are leaving. Therefore, respondent’s contention that it is impracticable to settle at Bengaluru for the sake of appellant’s wishes as he has to look after his parents so also financially he would burdened if he settles at Bengaluru while taking rented house and other domestic issues, these issues have been already appraised by the Court below. Appellant’s contention that Court below declined to extend maintenance or permanent alimony to the appellant, Court below has rightly noted down the qualification and earnings of the appellant that too at Bengaluru. She was traveling from Tumakuru to Bengaluru on daily basis to earn sufficient money. So also qualification of the appellant has been taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether appellant is entitled for maintenance or permanent alimony. That apart, conduct of the appellant is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of extending maintenance/permanent alimony. As is evident from the records, appellant has left her matrimonial home on her own and she is well-to-do and earning sufficiently. Therefore, rightly Court below has held that appellant is not entitled to maintenance/ permanent alimony. 12. In view of these facts and circumstances read with decision of the Supreme Court in Narendra's case supra, appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the judgment and decree of divorce. 13. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.