JUDGMENT : S. Sujatha, J. 1. The judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag ('the Court below' for short) in M.C. No. 138/2016 is called in question in this appeal. The appellant preferred petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) in M.C. No. 138/2016 for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and sought for dissolution of marriage, solemnized between the parties on 30.1.2012 at Sri Hosa Banashankaridevi Temple Kalyan Mantap, Betageri-Gadag. 2. Though the respondent was duly served, there was no representation. Hence, the respondent has been placed ex parte. In order to prove the case, the appellant examined himself as P.W. 1, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked documents at Exs. P1 to P3. On appreciation of the material evidence, the Court below dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/appellant is in appeal. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. N.D. Gunde appearing for the appellant would contend that the respondent has left the matrimonial home in the year 2012 and petition was filed in the year 2016. Considering the same, the Court below ought not to have dismissed the petition. The conclusion arrived at by the Court below is contrary to the material placed on record, which has caused substantial miscarriage of justice. It was contended that wilful desertion on the part of the respondent is apparent, the Court below proceeded to dismiss the petition mainly on the ground that, no petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed prior to filing of the petition seeking decree of divorce, which is not mandatory. Accordingly, he seeks for allowing the appeal by condoning the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. 5. While considering the application for condonation of delay, we have examined the matter on merits. The Court below has categorically observed that, before filing the petition seeking for divorce, no legal notice was issued to the respondent requesting her to come and join him to lead marital life and no petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed. Petition filed under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act sans complying with these procedures is contrary to the well established principles of law. Petition filed under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act sans complying with these procedures is contrary to the well established principles of law. The said finding of the Court below cannot be held to be unjustifiable or vitiated under any score. The conduct of the appellant discloses that no efforts were made by him to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home to lead marital life. It is only the allegations made by the appellant that the respondent has left the matrimonial home in the month of June 2012 which is not substantiated by concrete evidence other than the oral testimony of the interested parties. 6. It is trite that the married couple living separately would not be construed as desertion, the intention to bring the matrimonial life permanently to an end must be established. Animus deserendi is the basic factor to be proved for granting the decree of divorce. Merely on the vague statements/allegations, no decree of divorce can be granted. As such, there being no case on merits, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal, which would not prejudice the rights of respondent, since issuance of notice on I.A. No. 1/2017 for condonation of delay would be a futile exercise. Accordingly, we condone the delay of three days in filing the appeal. I.A. No. 1/2017 is allowed. However, on the merits of the case, there being no good grounds made out by the appellant to interfere with the well reasoned order, we dismiss the appeal.