JUDGMENT : (Alok Aradhe, J.) Mr. R.B. Sadasivappa, learned counsel for the appellant. Smt.Bindu U., learned counsel for the respondent. This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed against judgment and decree dated 13.01.2014 by which the Family Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the marriage between the parties of this appeal was solemnized on 22.11.2000 in Bengaluru. The respondent stayed in the matrimonial home only for a period of 4 months and thereafter, left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. The appellant thereupon filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion on 03.11.2001 which was dismissed by the Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.04.2006. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage enumerated under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of desertion. The respondent filed statement of objections. The Family Court recorded the evidence of the parties. The Family Court, by judgment dated 13.01.2014, inter alia held that the parties were residing separately for a period of 5 years yet the appellant has failed to prove animus deserendi and therefore, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent, in her cross-examination, has admitted that she was residing in the matrimonial home only for a period of 4 months from the date of marriage. It is further submitted that even though the Family Court itself found that the parties have been living separately for a period of 5 years, yet the Family Court erred in not granting a decree for dissolution of marriage. It is further submitted that the Family Court ought to have appreciated that even though the respondent left the matrimonial home, she did not make any attempt to join the matrimonial home inasmuch as neither any notice was sent on behalf of the respondent for joining the matrimonial home nor any petition under Section 9 of the Act was filed. It is further submitted that the Family Court ought to have appreciated that even though the respondent left the matrimonial home, she did not make any attempt to join the matrimonial home inasmuch as neither any notice was sent on behalf of the respondent for joining the matrimonial home nor any petition under Section 9 of the Act was filed. It is further submitted that if this Court grants the decree of divorce, the respondent is entitled to permanent alimony. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was thrown out of the matrimonial home and the Family Court, in the fact situation of the case, has rightly concluded that the ground of dissolution has not been made out. However, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that parties are now residing separately for 21 years. It is also pointed out that the appellant has to pay the arrears at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m. from the date of filing of the petition in pursuance of order passed in a proceeding under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, i.e. from 30.06.2014 which has not been paid to her. It is further submitted that respondent is also entitled to permanent alimony. 5. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act is extracted below for the facility of reference: “13(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party— (i) xxxx (ia) xxxx (ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or” 6. A Five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in LACHMAN UTAMCHAND KIRIPALANI Vs. MEENA @ MOTA, AIR 1964 SC 40 which has been followed in DEBANANDA TAMULI Vs. KAKUMONI KATAKY, 2022 SCC Online SC 187, while dealing with the expression ‘desertion’, has held that desertion means the intentional abandonment of the spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. MEENA @ MOTA, AIR 1964 SC 40 which has been followed in DEBANANDA TAMULI Vs. KAKUMONI KATAKY, 2022 SCC Online SC 187, while dealing with the expression ‘desertion’, has held that desertion means the intentional abandonment of the spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. It has further been held that deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. It has also been held that in other words, there should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. 7. The issue whether a case of desertion is made out or not, depends on the facts of each case and is a matter of drawing an inference on the basis of evidence on record. The appellant who was examined as PW-1, in his evidence, has stated that the marriage between the parties was performed on 22.11.2000. He has stated that the respondent deserted the matrimonial home in May 2001. The respondent who has been examined as RW-1, in her cross-examination, has admitted that she has stayed in the matrimonial home only for a period of 4 months from the date of marriage. Thus, from the evidence on record, it is evident that the appellant and respondent are residing separately after 4 months of their marriage. The Family Court, also in paragraph 26 of the judgment, has found that the parties are residing separately for more than 5 years. It is pertinent to note here that the respondent neither sent a notice nor filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. From the aforesaid conduct of the respondent, it can safely be inferred that she was not interested in joining the matrimonial home. The parties now are admittedly residing separately for past about 21 years. 8. In view of the finding recorded by the Family Court itself that the parties were residing separately for a period more than 5 years at the time of judgment i.e. in the year 2014 and the evidence on record, it is evident that the ground for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion was made out. However, the Family Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 9. However, the Family Court has failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 9. In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court dated 13.01.2014 is set aside and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act. The appellant is under an obligation to pay the amount of arrears of maintenance due to the respondent under the proceeding filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, taking into account the income of the appellant which was stated to be Rs.10,000/- in the year 2014, we direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- inclusive of the arrears of maintenance due to the respondent, before the Registry of this Court within a period of three months from today. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.