JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Husband is the appellant aggrieved by the dismissal of Title Matrimonial Suit No. 315 of 2014 by judgment and decree dated 27.02.2017/ 03.03.2017, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, whereunder, his prayer for dissolution of marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been rejected. 3. As per the case of the petitioner/appellant herein pleaded before the Family Court, marriage between the parties took place on 17.06.1990 as per Hindu rites and customs at Jamshedpur. They were blessed with a son, namely, Sachin Kumar and a daughter, namely, Diya @ Lily, who were aged about 22 years and 21 years respectively at the time of institution of the suit. Petitioner, an employee of BCCL, complained of ill behaviour soon after the marriage as respondent wanted him to live separately from his ailing old parents. Her behaviour became bad to worse due to interference of her family members. She went to her parental home frequently and since the year 1994 she along with the children have been living at her parental home. All efforts to bring her back went in vain. Sixteen years thereafter, a panchayati was convened on 29.10.2010 at Naresh Hotel at Chas, Bokaro for restitution of conjugal rights at the behest of well-wishers and relatives of both the parties. Thereafter again in December, 2010 another panchayati was held. Consequent thereto, father of the petitioner got constructed separate accommodation consisting of two rooms in the same plot i.e. Plot No.64, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro. Thereafter since 29.01.2011 she has been living separately from him. Petitioner''s effort to lead a happy conjugal life failed due to unwillingness of the respondent and interference from her parents and brothers. Since 29.01.2011 he has been providing maintenance at the rate of Rs. 9,000/- per month to her and the children, remitted in her Account at State Bank of India, Chhota Govindpur, Jamshedpur vide A/c No. 11338757852. He alleged that in the agreement arrived at on 29.01.2011 despite the presence of her father, two brothers and one Rinku Singh, they refused to sign thereupon though petitioner signed on it. They went away after snatching the said Ekrarnama and also threatened him. He alleged that in the agreement arrived at on 29.01.2011 despite the presence of her father, two brothers and one Rinku Singh, they refused to sign thereupon though petitioner signed on it. They went away after snatching the said Ekrarnama and also threatened him. Brother of the respondent came in the year 2012 and assaulted him in an inebriated state which caused injuries to his eyes. On treatment at Shankar Netralaya, Chennai, Doctors found that eyesight of one of his eyes had been completely lost. He has to go to Chennai for treatment of his other eye. She had filed an application at Mahila Police Station, B.S. City, where the petitioner and his father were directed to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month to her towards maintenance, which he has been paying all along. She has not been living in the house constructed for her rather she is living in her parental house at Jamshedpur. He requested her to vacate the said accommodation so that rental maintenance amount accruing there from may be given to the respondent. All these facts taken together indicated willful desertion on the part of the respondent and continuous physical and mental cruelty upon him for over a period of twenty years. Therefore, he was compelled to file a suit for decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Respondent through her written statement contended that the suit was not maintainable on facts and in law and was barred by limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. All the allegations were specifically denied by her. She alleged torture due to nonfulfillment of dowry whereupon she had to go to her parental home along with the children. She also referred to the agreement-cumsettlement arrived at between the parties at the instance of wellwishers and family members to restore their conjugal relationship but he refused to keep her and the children. He again started torturing her and forced her to live separately in an outhouse without any facility, which led to filing of the complaint at Mahila Police Station, Bokaro. Petitioner was a habitual drunkard, who sustained injury in his eyes due to fall in drunken state. She denied allegations of assault against her brother. She expressed her willingness throughout to lead a conjugal life but petitioner was not agreed to it. She complained of torture in drunken state both upon her and her children. Petitioner was a habitual drunkard, who sustained injury in his eyes due to fall in drunken state. She denied allegations of assault against her brother. She expressed her willingness throughout to lead a conjugal life but petitioner was not agreed to it. She complained of torture in drunken state both upon her and her children. According to her, dissolution of marriage after twenty-four years is not proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The following issues were framed on the basis of rival pleadings of the parties upon recast by the learned Family Court: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing this suit? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce u/s 13(1) (ia) of the H.M. Act on the basis of cruelty alleged to have been committed upon him by his wife/respondent? (iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the plaintiff/petitioner without any reasonable cause, continuously for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the suit? (v) Whether the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for by him? 5. During the course of trial, petitioner examined four witnesses i.e. PW-1, Rajiv Kumar Singh; PW-2 Brij Nandan Thakur; PW-3 Nandu Chourasia; and PW-4, Satrughan Verma. 6. Petitioner further exhibited the following documents: Exhibits-1 & 1/1 are receiving of the application of the petitioner by Mukhiya and Sarpanch. Petitioner had jointly addressed them and they put their signatures along with seal in lieu of receiving. He had informed the Mukhiya and Sarpanch that she had tried to enter his house forcibly and was also willing to attend Shradh ceremony of his mother. He had requested them to prevent his wife from entering in his house and also from attending Shradh ceremony of his mother. Exhibit-2 is the receiving of monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 9,000/- by her for the period July, 2012 to May, 2013. This document was admitted by the respondent. Exhibits- 3 to 3/18 are original pay-in slips of SBI showing the deposits in the account of the respondent. This showed regular deposits of Rs. 9,000/- from June, 2013 to December, 2014. These exhibits have also been admitted by the respondent. Exhibit-4 is certified copy of information petition No. 505/10 filed by the petitioner before CJM, Bokaro. Exhibits- 3 to 3/18 are original pay-in slips of SBI showing the deposits in the account of the respondent. This showed regular deposits of Rs. 9,000/- from June, 2013 to December, 2014. These exhibits have also been admitted by the respondent. Exhibit-4 is certified copy of information petition No. 505/10 filed by the petitioner before CJM, Bokaro. Exhibit-5 is another certified copy of information petition No. 292/14 filed by him in the Court of CJM, Bokaro. Exhibit-6 is also a certified copy of information petition No. 772/14 filed by him before the same Court. Certified copy of a document, filed in M.P. Case No. 67/2015 before the Family Court, Bokaro has been marked ''X''. This is a certificate issued by Sankar Netralaya, Chennai that the petitioner is 100% visually handicapped and is eligible for all possible concessions. Respondent did not object to the genuineness of this document. Marked-X/1 to X/10 are certified copies of the documents, filed in M.P. Case No. 67/2015 before the Family Court, Bokaro, which relate to the treatment for eye ailments of the petitioner in the said hospital. These include cash memos, appointment slips and drug bills. 7. Respondent examined herself as RW-1, her father, Ujagar Singh as RW-2 and Sanjeev Kumar, her brother as RW-3. Besides oral evidence, no documents were adduced by the respondent. 8. Learned Family Court considered the evidence on record in the light of rival pleadings of the parties and culled out the following admitted facts: (i) Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.06.1990 as per Hindu rites and customs. (ii) Petitioner is an employee of BCCL working since before marriage and posted at Dhanbad. (iii) Two children, namely, Sachin Kumar and Diya @ Lily aged about 24 and 23 years respectively, were born out of the marriage. Their schooling had been completed at Jamshedpur. Both were pursuing Engineering from Jaipur and Pune respectively as per statement at para-20 of RW-2, their maternal grandfather. This fact has not been denied by the petitioner. (iv) Respondent filed a complaint before Mahila Police Station, Bokaro regarding torture at the hands of the petitioner. (v) Petitioner had paid Rs. 9,000/- per month towards maintenance since July, 2012 till December, 2014. (vi) Maintenance Case No. 67/2015 has been filed by the wife on 08.05.2015. 9. Issue No.(iii) relating to cruelty in marriage was first taken up for determination by the learned Family Court. (v) Petitioner had paid Rs. 9,000/- per month towards maintenance since July, 2012 till December, 2014. (vi) Maintenance Case No. 67/2015 has been filed by the wife on 08.05.2015. 9. Issue No.(iii) relating to cruelty in marriage was first taken up for determination by the learned Family Court. The pleadings relating to cruelty after marriage and the alleged assault by the brother of the respondent, which has caused loss of eyesight of eye one, were also considered. However, learned Court found that such assault was not attributed towards the respondent in particular. On the other hand, respondent had alleged torture and cruelty against the petitioner for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry as a result of which she had to go to her parental house along children. Petitioner had supported his case in examination-in-chief. During cross-examination, he had denied that panchayati was held on 19.10.2010 in his presence and that it was decided that he would take his wife along with him and keep her properly. However, in his plaint, he had stated that aforesaid panchayati was convened. In para-35 of his cross-examination, he admitted that he kept his wife in the outhouse but never went there to live with her even after her repeated request. Exhibits 1 and 1/1 adduced by him showed that even at the time of Shradh ceremony of his mother, respondent had gone to attend it but petitioner did not allow her; rather he made a complaint in writing before the Mukhia and Sarpanch to prevent her from entering into the house. These statements and documents revealed that it was the petitioner who had prevented the respondent from residing with him. PW-2 was neither a neighbour nor resident of the same locality i.e. Co-operative Colony. According to his statement, he was running a hair cutting saloon at Dundibag Bazar and had been going to the house of the petitioner since the year 1989 as a Barber. However, in his cross-examination, he could not state that he had attended the marriage ceremony of the petitioner. It appeared he was not well acquainted with the family affairs of the petitioner. PW-3 also appeared to be a hearsay witness. He had a Betel shop in Dundibag. PW-4 had a tailoring shop at Dundibag. He did not know why this case had been filed. He did not know the name of the petitioner''s wife. It appeared he was not well acquainted with the family affairs of the petitioner. PW-3 also appeared to be a hearsay witness. He had a Betel shop in Dundibag. PW-4 had a tailoring shop at Dundibag. He did not know why this case had been filed. He did not know the name of the petitioner''s wife. He also stated that he had never seen the petitioner''s wife. He did not know whether any panchayati was held regarding the marital dispute. He could not say that petitioner''s wife is residing separately from him. Learned Family Court found that this witness was also not at all acquainted with the marital relationship between the parties. 10. Respondent, RW-1, in her deposition, referred to the demand of dowry and torture due to non-fulfillment thereof. She stated that her husband used to return from duty in an inebriated state and after assaulting her, he ousted her along with her children from the matrimonial house. She had to return to the parental house but due to intervention of her parents and brothers she returned to the matrimonial home again. She referred to the panchayati held on 19.10.2010 at Naresh Hotel at Chas, Bokaro where it was decided that separate accommodation along with all necessary facilities would be constructed over the vacant land and both the parties would live together and would lead a happy conjugal life. She further stated that after such construction, she along with her children started residing there but torture by the petitioner continued. One day he came in drunken state and fell down which caused injuries in his eyes. He had leveled a false allegation of assault against her brother. All her efforts to persuade her husband to stop such atrocities failed. Ultimately, she lodged a complaint at Mahila Police Station, Bokaro regarding cruelty committed by him. She stated that she is still willing to live with her husband and lead a happy conjugal life. Witnesses, RW-2 and RW-3 have also deposed in support of the case of the respondent. 11. Ultimately, she lodged a complaint at Mahila Police Station, Bokaro regarding cruelty committed by him. She stated that she is still willing to live with her husband and lead a happy conjugal life. Witnesses, RW-2 and RW-3 have also deposed in support of the case of the respondent. 11. The issue of cruelty was dealt with by the learned Family Court in the light of the provisions under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, such as, in the cases of Sujata Uday Patil versus Uday Madhukar Patil , (2007) 2 JCR 229 (SC); Samar Ghosh versus Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511 para-101; Savitri Pandey versus Prem Chandra Pandey , (2002) 2 SCC 73 para-6; Gurubux Singh versus Harminder Kaur , (2011) 1 PLJR 75 (SC) para-12; and Ramchander versus Ananta , (2015) 11 SCC 539 para-10. 12. Learned Family Court found that out of the four witnesses examined by the petitioner except him, PW-3 and PW-4 were hearsay witnesses and PW-2 also did not appear to be aware of the family affairs of the parties. He had no knowledge regarding the matrimonial dispute. Petitioner had not examined any of his family members, such as, father, brother or bhabhi. He had also not examined either his son or daughter, both of whom were major and could be natural witnesses to depose in this case about the matrimonial relationship between their parents. In a matrimonial discord, it is not only the relationship between the spouses that is affected but their offspring also suffer due to such disputes. 13. Learned Family Court referred to Exhibits- 1 and 1/1 and opined that conduct of the petitioner showed that he was not willing to keep his wife and lead a conjugal life with her. He had failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty or such ill conduct by any cogent evidence. As such, issue of cruelty was decided against him. Learned Family Court also did not found the ingredients of desertion under Issue No.(iv) made out against the respondent. Ingredients of desertion as laid down in the case of Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah versus Prabhavati , (1957) AIR SC 176, also relied in the case of Savitri Pandey where discussed threadbare. Learned Family Court also relied upon the ratio rendered in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D. versus Dr. Ingredients of desertion as laid down in the case of Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah versus Prabhavati , (1957) AIR SC 176, also relied in the case of Savitri Pandey where discussed threadbare. Learned Family Court also relied upon the ratio rendered in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D. versus Dr. B.V. Ravi, M.D. , (2014) 7 SCC 640 while discussing the material evidence on record relating to the ingredients of desertion. Petitioner was unable to prove that respondent had intentionally and permanently forsaken the matrimonial relationship and had abandoned her husband without any reasonable case. On the contrary, it appeared from the material evidence on record that she is living temporarily in her Maike under compelling circumstances created by the petitioner himself. Petitioner had failed to prove that respondent had withdrawn herself from her matrimonial obligations and had deserted the petitioner for a continuous period for not less than two years immediately preceding presentation of the suit. Element of "animus deserendi" against the wife was not proved. On the contrary, evidence on record showed that petitioner had ill treated the respondent many times and ousted her from matrimonial home, when she was compelled to go her parents'' house. However, she again returned to her matrimonial home to lead a conjugal life with him. As such, petitioner could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. If he had created circumstances which compelled her to go her parents'' house frequently, he cannot be allowed to take the plea of desertion against her. This issue was also decided against the petitioner/ appellant herein. Rest of the Issue Nos. (i), (ii) and (v) were decided in the light of the findings rendered in respect of Issue Nos. (iii) and (iv). The suit was accordingly dismissed. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions: She submits that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down as they have been living separately since 1994 without any chance of reunion. The conduct of the husband has been always bona fide and fair. This could be evident from the fact that petitioner and his father had made arrangements for the separate accommodation of the respondent in the outhouse of the same premises i.e. the matrimonial home. Respondent had been pressuring the petitioner to live separately from his ailing aged parents. The conduct of the husband has been always bona fide and fair. This could be evident from the fact that petitioner and his father had made arrangements for the separate accommodation of the respondent in the outhouse of the same premises i.e. the matrimonial home. Respondent had been pressuring the petitioner to live separately from his ailing aged parents. This was the root cause for the respondent to ill-treat the husband. Separation since 1994 till 2010 is evident from the case of either of the parties. Even after the panchayati held in 2010, respondent did not live happily. Petitioner and his father constructed the outhouse in 2011 for her to live along with the children. As per the evidence on record, it is also clear that the children have not stayed in the outhouse but had been brought up and educated at Jamshedpur i.e. the parental house of the respondent. Respondent had hurled false allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry against petitioner by filing a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Bokaro. The bona fide of the petitioner is also evident from the fact that acting on the terms of the panchayati he has been paying maintenance @ Rs. 9000/- per month regularly. Despite that respondent has filed a maintenance case in 2015. The entire matrimonial life of the parties should be reviewed as a whole to come to a finding whether there is any chance of resumption of conjugal life. Reliance is placed on the illustrations rendered at para 101 of the report in case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511 . Reliance is also placed in the case of K Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa , (2013) 5 SCC 226 para 30-35, where the same principles have been reiterated. It is submitted that in such circumstances when all emotional ties have dried up and there are no chances of reunion, refusal to severe the matrimonial tie itself would amount to mental cruelty upon the suffering spouse. Respondent has unnecessarily been resisting the dissolution of marriage despite her ill treatment and her conduct in living in continuous separation for last 24 years. No worthwhile purpose would be achieved by keeping the legal tie alive when no emotional ties are surviving between the parties. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. 15. Respondent has unnecessarily been resisting the dissolution of marriage despite her ill treatment and her conduct in living in continuous separation for last 24 years. No worthwhile purpose would be achieved by keeping the legal tie alive when no emotional ties are surviving between the parties. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings rendered by the family court on both counts. She submits that none of the ingredients of cruelty and desertion have been made out on the strength of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the petitionerhusband. Respondent has all along shown her intention to live with him. However, it is his conduct which has compelled her at times to go to her parental house but she has again come back to the matrimonial house to continue with the conjugal relationship. There is no intention of permanently forsaking the matrimonial relationship. Respondent is not responsible for any act of abandonment of her husband. Ext. - 1 series has rightly been considered by the learned family court as incidence to show that it was petitioner- husband who refused her entry in the matrimonial home and prevented her from attending the Shradh Ceremony of her mother-in-law. His continuous torture for non-fulfillment of dowry had compelled the respondent to lodge a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Bokaro. However, the said case is also not been pursued by her as she wants the marital relationship to be restored. Her children are at a matured age. The daughter is of a marriageable age. If the appellant is allowed relief, it would also act as a stigma on the marital relationship between the parties which may affect the prospects of the marriage of the daughter. The learned family court rightly found that petitioner had failed to adduce any of the close relative or the two children in support of his case. Respondent does not have any independent source of income and is fully dependent upon the maintenance amount payable by the husband/appellant herein. Appellant is an employee of BCCL and is required to fulfill the obligations of a husband and a father in maintaining them through his substantial sources of income. As such, no case has been made out for interference in the findings of the learned family court. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 16. Appellant is an employee of BCCL and is required to fulfill the obligations of a husband and a father in maintaining them through his substantial sources of income. As such, no case has been made out for interference in the findings of the learned family court. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 16. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel of the parties at length and gone through the impugned judgment. We have also taken into account the relevant material evidence relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties and the judgment cited at the bar. 17. The chronology of facts culled out from the pleadings of the parties and the discussion on the relevant material evidence borne on record, made above, need no repetition. Petitioner had set up a case for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. On an assessment and re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we find that apart from the fact that the parties had not lived together for majority of the time since their marriage, the plea of cruelty or desertion do not seem to be established on the part of the petitioner-husband. If the petitioner alleged that respondent had been living separately since 1994 itself, four years after their marriage, the suit has been instituted in 2014 on grounds of cruelty alleged to have been inflicted upon him over a period of time since 1994. There are no oral witnesses either apart from the petitioner himself who have been able to support the case of the petitioner on the charge of cruelty. P.W. 2, 3 and 4, all appear to be barber /betel/ tailor shop owner at a place at Dundibag Bazar, no were close to the locality of the petitioner i.e. cooperative colony, Bokaro. Surprisingly, petitioner had failed to adduce any of his close family members in support of his case. He even failed to adduce the two children who were major by that time, who could be the best natural witnesses to depose about the matrimonial relationship of the parties. Surprisingly, petitioner had failed to adduce any of his close family members in support of his case. He even failed to adduce the two children who were major by that time, who could be the best natural witnesses to depose about the matrimonial relationship of the parties. There are no such incidences or aggravating circumstances of cruelty of such a nature proved by the petitioner, which in terms of the ratio rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, and other precedence on the point sufficient to create an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be difficult to live with the respondent any longer. On the contrary, it is the respondent who had lodged a complaint alleging cruelty on non-fulfillment of demand of dowry before Mahila Police Station Bokaro against the petitioner. The parties have been in continuous separation over a long period of time but, if it is attributable to fault of one party, he could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong, more so in a light of principle enshrined in section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The findings of the learned family court on the issue of cruelty therefore, do not suffer from any such error of law or fact or mis-appreciation of evidence which require interference in appeal. We now proceed to examine the plea of desertion based on the material pleadings and evidence on record. In the case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey , (2002) 2 SCC 73 , the ratio rendered in the case of Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavati , (1957) AIR SC 176 was also relied upon. The Apex Court held that for the offence of desertion to be established, the deserting spouse is required to establish two essential conditions (i) the factum of separation and (ii) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two essential elements are required to be established by the deserted spouse : (i) the absence of consent and (ii) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. Petitioner has a burden of proving the elements in the two spouses respectively. Desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case. Petitioner has a burden of proving the elements in the two spouses respectively. Desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case. The inference may be drawn from certain facts which may not be in another case capable of leading to the same inference. Facts have to be viewed as to the purpose which is revealed by those acts or by conduct and expression of intention, both interior or subsequent to the actual acts of separation. The offence of desertion may commence when fact of separation and animus deserendi coexist. However, de-facto separation may have commenced without the necessary animus or it may be that the separation and animus deserendi coincide in point of time. If a deserting spouse takes advantage of locus poenitentiae thus provided by law and decides to come back to the deserted spouse by a bona fide offer of resuming the matrimonial home with all the implications of marital life before the statutory period is over or even after lapse of that period unless proceedings for divorce have been commenced, desertion comes to an end and if the deserted spouse unreasonably refuses the offer the later may be in desertion and not the former. Therefore, it is necessary that during all these period, the deserted spouse must affirm the marriage and be ready and willing to resume married life on such conditions as may be reasonable. It is also well settled that in a proceedings for divorce the plaintiff must prove the offence of desertion like any other matrimonial offence beyond all reasonable doubt. Though corroboration is not required as an absolute rule of law, the court insists upon corroborating evidence unless its absence is accounted for to the satisfaction of the court. In the facts of the present case, more so when the suit has been instituted in 2014 alleging desertion since 1994, it appears that there was a panchayati on 29.10.2010. As per the decision of the panchayati, father of petitioner got constructed separate accommodation consisting of two rooms in the same plot no. 64 at Cooperative colony, Bokaro. It is also evident from Ext. - 1 & 1/1 that the petitioner made an application before the Mukhiya and Sarpanch on 03.02.2015 informing of the fact that respondent was trying to enter his house forcibly and also to attend Shradh Ceremony of his mother. 64 at Cooperative colony, Bokaro. It is also evident from Ext. - 1 & 1/1 that the petitioner made an application before the Mukhiya and Sarpanch on 03.02.2015 informing of the fact that respondent was trying to enter his house forcibly and also to attend Shradh Ceremony of his mother. He had prayed before the Mukhiya and Sapanch to prevent his wife to enter in the house and also attend Shradh Ceremony of his mother. Respondent has all throughout shown her intention to come back to the matrimonial house. In fact statement of the petitioner at para 35 of the cross-examination also showed that petitioner had kept his wife in the outhouse but had never gone there to live with her even after her repeated request. This shows absence of animus deserendi on the part of the respondent to permanently forsake the matrimonial relationship though de facto living in separation due to compulsion as petitioner had by his conduct given a reasonable cause for her to do so. In such circumstances, the charge of desertion is also not made out. Therefore, petitioner could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Parties may have lived separately but also in such close physical proximity that respondent has been living in the outhouse of the same premises constructed by the petitioner''s father. It also should not be lost sight of that because of the intransigence of one of the spouses i.e. the petitioner in this case, the prospects of the children, who have become major specially the daughter who is at a marriageable age, have suffered. Evidently, petitioner is in a much better of condition than the respondent. The children, however, continue to live with the respondent and were pursuing engineering courses at Jaipur and Pune respectively. An overall assessment of the matrimonial relationship of the parties in the facts of the present case do not lead us to the inference that the approach of the respondent in maintaining the conjugal relationship despite all odds could be treated as an act of mental cruelty to dissolve the marriage itself. We, therefore, do not find any reason to a take a divergent opinion from that recorded by the learned family court. As such, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Decree accordingly.