JUDGMENT : A.S.BOPANNA, CJ. 1. Heard Mr. R Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant wife is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 11.1.2017 passed by the learned Court below in T.S. (D) No.12/2010. By the said judgment, the learned Court below has accepted the petition filed by the respondent herein i.e., the husband under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and has accordingly dissolved the marriage between the parties. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal. 3. The brief facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.7.96 at Panapur, Bihar as per the Hindu rites. Thereafter, they have led their marital life and have a son, namely, Master Suraj Kumar @ Mohit. When this was the position, the respondent herein instituted T.S.(D) No. 12/2010 under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that the appellant herein had suddenly left the house of the respondent on 10.8.97. In that light, it was contended that the appellant herein had deserted the respondent by abandoning the marital home and in that light the respondent had sought for dissolution of the marriage. The appellant herein had filed her written statement in the said proceedings and had disputed the claim as put forth by the respondent herein. Among others, it was contended by the appellant that the respondent at an earlier point of time had in fact filed T.S.(D) No.1/2005 under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the very ground of desertion and had alleged that the appellant herein had deserted him on 20.12.2004. It was further contended that the said proceedings had concluded on contest and the petition filed by the respondent herein had been dismissed. It is in that view, contended that the subsequent suit for the same relief was not maintainable and further that keeping in view the nature of the contentions urged in the earlier proceedings and the basis on which the instant suit is filed as also the date of desertion as indicated, the suit is not sustainable. 4. The learned Court below having taken into consideration the rival pleadings had framed six issues for its consideration which read as under: (1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 4. The learned Court below having taken into consideration the rival pleadings had framed six issues for its consideration which read as under: (1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (3) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? 4) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner on 10.8.97? 5. In order to establish the contentions as put forth by the respondent herein before the Court below, he had examined himself as PW-1. The appellant herein had also examined herself as DW-1. Based on the evidence as tendered by the parties, the Court below has ultimately analysed the same and has arrived at the conclusion. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment, at the outset, referred to the nature of the pleadings put forth in T.S.(D) No. 12/2010 and the pleadings that were put forth in the earlier suit being T.S.(D) No. 1/2005. In that light, it is contended that when the earlier suit was filed under the very same provision contending that the appellant had deserted the respondent on 20.12.2004, it is not only improper but also false to contend that the date of desertion would be 10.8.97 when the subsequent suit is filed after nearly five years of filing the earlier suit i.e., in the year 2010. It is contended that when the suit had been initiated with all improbable contentions and on the very ground of desertion, the Court below ought not to have accepted the case as put forth in the subsequent suit. It is further pointed out that from the very analysis of the evidence as has been tendered, in fact, the Court below itself has noticed this aspect of the matter and has arrived at the conclusion that no specific case to substantiate the plea of desertion has been made out. Despite such conclusion, the Court below has erroneously proceeded to grant the decree of divorce by considering the marriage to have irretrievably broken down. In that light, it is contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has not chosen to appear and controvert the contentions as put forth. 8. Despite such conclusion, the Court below has erroneously proceeded to grant the decree of divorce by considering the marriage to have irretrievably broken down. In that light, it is contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has not chosen to appear and controvert the contentions as put forth. 8. In any event, since in a first appeal of the present nature where the rival pleadings would form the basis and the consideration that is made by the Court below would be an aspect which would be noticed herein before a conclusion is reached, we have taken note of the appeal papers and the record received from the Court below. As noticed, the instant suit is one filed under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Based on the pleadings as put forth, apart from the other issues which had been framed, Issue No. 4 relates to desertion as pleaded w.e.f.10.8.97. Though the respondent herein has stated with regard to the manner in which the appellant wife has stayed away from the marital home, the case as put forth by the appellant wife was with regard to other proceedings which had arisen between the parties including a complaint that wife filed under Section 498 of the IPC. In that light, it was contended that in a circumstance where there was a demand for motorcycle and the same had not been given to the respondent, the respondent husband has driven out the appellant wife from the marital home. With such statement in the pleadings and in the evidence, the respondent wife has set up a case indicating that even though she had stayed away from the marital home and was residing in her parents’ home, she was forced to do so and such a situation had arisen due to the conduct of the respondent. It is in that light, reference was made to the date ‘29.1.2005’ when demand for motorcycle was made and non-fulfillment of the demand had resulted in her being driven out. In such circumstances when the respondent husband was before the Court below with a specific case that the appellant wife had deserted the marital home on 10.8.97, there ought to have been specific evidence in that regard. In such circumstances when the respondent husband was before the Court below with a specific case that the appellant wife had deserted the marital home on 10.8.97, there ought to have been specific evidence in that regard. In any event, the admitted position is that the respondent herein had earlier filed T.S.(D) No. 1/2005 invoking Section 13(1)(id) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage on the very ground of desertion. In the said proceedings the contention put forth was that the appellant wife had deserted the marital home on 20.12.2004. The pleadings as well as the judgment in the said proceedings have been brought on record in the instant proceedings. In such circumstances when at the first instance the respondent herein had approached the competent Court by contending that the wife had deserted the marital home on 20.12.2004 and had failed in such earlier proceedings, acceptance of the case in a subsequent suit based on the contention that the desertion was from an earlier date i.e., 10.8.97, in any event, would not be justified. In fact, a perusal of the judgment passed by the Court below would indicate that the Court below was also not satisfied with the case as put forth by the respondent herein. This is evident from the very observation and conclusion reached by the Court below in Para 13 of its judgment and it would be appropriate to extract the same hereunder as it would sum up the position: “13. So far the ground of desertion is concerned, from the conjoint reading of the petition filed by the petitioner and the written statement of the respondent as well as the evidence of the parties, it would appear that no specific case to substantiate the plea of desertion has been made out. However in this case admittedly the respondent is living in her parental house since last 17 years. She only used to come to Bongaigaon to receive her maintenance. There is no evidence that whenever she came, she even tried to reconcile the disputes with her husband or ever went to her husband’s house to restart conjugal life. Before framing issues efforts have been made for conciliation in this court but the parties are not willing to settle the dispute. There is no evidence that whenever she came, she even tried to reconcile the disputes with her husband or ever went to her husband’s house to restart conjugal life. Before framing issues efforts have been made for conciliation in this court but the parties are not willing to settle the dispute. In this process, the marital tie between the husband and wife has been irretrievably broken and there is no chance of reconciliation and to lead happy conjugal life. Since the petitioner and the respondent have been living separately since 29.1.2005 till date, I am of the considered view that marriage is broken down with no possibility of the parties to live together. The parties could not at this state, reconcile themselves and live together by adopting ‘forget and forgive’ principle. The parties are litigating since 2005 and they have lost their valuable part of their life and can live peacefully for the remaining part of their life and it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief of dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce.” 9. A perusal of the paragraph extracted above would indicate that the Court below itself has arrived at the conclusion that the respondent has failed to substantiate the plea of desertion, but has thereafter proceeded to grant the decree of divorce only on taking note that the appellant wife has been residing in her parental house since last 17 years. That by itself cannot be a ground for dissolution of the marriage on the plea of the husband unless the factum of desertion is proved and animusdecidendi is also established. In that view, we are of the opinion that the Court below was not justified in its conclusion and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 10. The judgment dated 11.1.2017 passed by the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon in T.S.(D) No. 12/2010 is accordingly set aside. 11. The appeal is allowed.