JUDGMENT Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - The wife of the petitioner, who suffered a decree for dissolution of marriage in M.C. No. 222/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Belagavi (for short, 'trial Court') in a petition filed by her husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion, is in appeal. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. Certain facts narrated in the pleadings can be summarized as under: 3.1. The petitioner and respondent were married on 22.12.1997 at Haveri. The respondent was doing her internship at the time of marriage. After staying 5 days in the matrimonial house, she left for her parent's house in Belagavi, stayed there for 5 months, and came back to the matrimonial house and lived for 30 days. It is the case of the petitioner-husband that the respondent-wife used to visit her parent's house frequently without there being any justifiable reasons and used to stay there for a long period discarding her marital obligations at her matrimonial house. It is stated that the elder brother and elder sister of the petitioner approached the respondent at her matrimonial house in Belagavi and requested her to join her husband at Haveri. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent returned to her matrimonial house reluctantly. A few years later, the male child was born to the couple. It is alleged that in the month of September-2000 respondent again went to her parent's house along with the child without any reason and consent of the petitioner. It is alleged that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without any valid reason. The petitioner alleges that he is deprived of the company of his son. This led to the petitioner filing M.C. No. 15/2001 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Haveri for restitution of conjugal rights. In the alternative, he also sought dissolution of marriage. 3.2. The prayer for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in terms of decree dated 30.06.2008. Respondent-wife challenged the said judgement and decree by filing MFA No. 22464/2009. The matter was settled before this Court in terms of compromise petition filed by the parties. In terms of the said compromise petition, the parties agreed to visit each other during weekends. 3.2. The prayer for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in terms of decree dated 30.06.2008. Respondent-wife challenged the said judgement and decree by filing MFA No. 22464/2009. The matter was settled before this Court in terms of compromise petition filed by the parties. In terms of the said compromise petition, the parties agreed to visit each other during weekends. However, it is alleged that the terms of the compromise petition were not adhered to by the respondent-wife. The wife alleges that the husband also did not adhere to the terms of the compromise. 3.3. It is further alleged that the respondent has filed a petition in Crl.Misc. No. 164/2011 alleging domestic violence against the husband. The petitioner further alleged that the wife has not looked after him properly, has treated him with cruelty, and deserted him. As such, he filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage for the second time. 3.4. The respondent contested the matter denying all allegations leveled against her and made a statement that she is ready to join the petitioner and also stated that the husband is insisting her to resign from her job. It is her case that she completed post-graduation after her marriage at the instance of the petitioner and she is pursuing her career after post-graduation and she is not in a position to give up her job. She would state that she would pursue her career as well as continue her marital relationship with the husband and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 3.5. The parties led evidence in support of their respective claim. The trial Court after considering the material on record has concluded that the respondent has indeed deserted petitioner-husband and also upheld the plea of cruelty and granted decree of dissolution of marriage on both grounds. Aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent-wife is in appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel, Sri Shivaraj S Balloli appearing for the respondent-wife and Sri T.M. Nadaf appearing for the petitioner-husband. 5. Sri Shivaraj S Balloli, learned counsel for the respondent-wife elaborating on the grounds urged in the appeal memo, would take us through the evidence led before the trial Court and also the reasonings assigned by the trial Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel, Sri Shivaraj S Balloli appearing for the respondent-wife and Sri T.M. Nadaf appearing for the petitioner-husband. 5. Sri Shivaraj S Balloli, learned counsel for the respondent-wife elaborating on the grounds urged in the appeal memo, would take us through the evidence led before the trial Court and also the reasonings assigned by the trial Court. He would submit that though there is no material before the Court to accept the plea of cruelty and desertion, the trial Court on improper appreciation of evidence has erroneously concluded that cruelty and desertion are established. He would refer to paragraph No. 12 of the judgement of the Trial Court, wherein the following oral evidence is extracted: Learned counsel would also refer to the oral evidence recorded in Crl.Misc. No. 248/2013, which is extracted in paragraph No. 13 of the judgement as under: 6. By referring to these evidence, learned counsel appearing for the wife would urge that the wife is willing to have a marital relationship with husband and it is only because of unjustified insistence on the part of the husband asking her to quit the job for which wife is not ready, petitioner-husband is seeking dissolution of marriage. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, Sri T.M. Nadaf would take us through the discussion found in paragraph No. 15 of the judgement. He would also refer to the evidence in the cross-examination of the wife, which reads as under: 8. From this statement and other materials placed on record, it is apparent that the husband and wife are staying apart for more than 22 years. The wife is giving preference to her career and the husband is insisting for the wife to quit the job and join him at the matrimonial home. Both the parties are not ready to give up their respective stand. From the evidence placed on record, though this Court is of the opinion that the husband has failed to establish plea of cruelty alleged in the petition, there is enough material to conclude that desertion is established. For the last 22 years, the husband and wife are not living together and have been rigorously fighting the litigation in various Courts. 9. For the last 22 years, the husband and wife are not living together and have been rigorously fighting the litigation in various Courts. 9. During the course of the submission, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, Sri T.M. Nadaf would place reliance on the judgement of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of K. Mallikarjuna vs. H.A. Sudha Mallikarjuna in MFA No. 4314/2012 decided on 16.11.2021 and placing reliance on the said judgement would submit that on account of the long separation of husband and wife which in that case was 21 years and in this case the separation being 22 years would submit that the ratio laid down in the said case squarely applies to the case if this Court to grant a decree for divorce on account of desertion. 10. This Court has gone through the said judgement and the ratio laid down therein. This Court while considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Geeta Jagdish Mangtani vs. Jagdish Mangtani [2005 (4) KCCR SN 267] and Sivasankaran vs. Santhimeenal has concluded that if the parties are living separately with an intention to stay separate then the Court can grant a decree for divorce if the Court is of the opinion that the parties are not in a position to live together. 11. This Court perused the evidence placed on record. From the evidence placed on record, it is apparent that chances of a resumption of marital life between the petitioner and the respondent is extremely bleak. It is also forthcoming from the record that the wife has intentionally stayed away from the husband giving preference to career over the matrimonial relationship. This Court is not saying that the respondent-wife is wrong in giving preference to career, however, from the evidence on record it is apparent that she has no intention to be in the company of her husband. Even in the previous round of litigation when the compromise was arrived at between the parties, wherein they agreed to spend some time with each other on weekends, the same did not work out. Under the circumstances, it is apparent that the wife has wilfully stayed away from the society of the husband and that leads to the conclusion that the wife has deserted the husband. 12. Under the circumstances, it is apparent that the wife has wilfully stayed away from the society of the husband and that leads to the conclusion that the wife has deserted the husband. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband, Sri T.M. Nadaf during his submission would also make an offer in the form of an affidavit dated 15.02.2022, that the husband is ready to pay Rs. 20 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife. It is submitted during the hearing that the only son of the couple has completed engineering graduation and is working. There is no dispute over the fact that the wife is working as a professor in a medical college and is financially independent. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife, Sri Shivaraj S Balloli would submit that the wife is not insisting on alimony and is not ready to accept the same and she prays for dismissal of the petition seeking dissolution of marriage. 14. We have considered the case from several perspectives. Dismissal of a petition seeking dissolution of marriage is not likely to lead to a resumption of marital life as the wife is still 49 years old and has got another 11-12 years of career as a professor. Moreover, enough material is placed on record to hold that the wife has deserted the petitioner. From the overall perspective of the matters placed before the court, this court is of the opinion that the plea of desertion is established as the wife is intentionally staying apart and away from the husband. However, the finding on cruelty is to be set aside as is not established. The decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion is to be upheld. Accordingly, the appeal has to be allowed in part with the above-said modification. 15. This Court has taken note of the affidavit dated 15.02.2022 filed by the petitioner-husband, wherein he has offered to pay Rs. 20 lakhs as permanent alimony to the wife. This Court directs the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 20 lakhs in three equal monthly installments commencing from 1st March 2022. The amount shall be deposited before the Family Court, Belagavi. The Family Court, Belagavi shall issue notice to the respondent-wife before the trial Court requesting her to receive the amount on proper identification. This Court directs the petitioner-husband to pay Rs. 20 lakhs in three equal monthly installments commencing from 1st March 2022. The amount shall be deposited before the Family Court, Belagavi. The Family Court, Belagavi shall issue notice to the respondent-wife before the trial Court requesting her to receive the amount on proper identification. In case, the wife refuses to receive the amount, notice shall be sent to the son, Prabhudda and if he is willing to accept the same, the same shall be released in his favor on proper identification. 16. The appeal partly allowed and judgment and dated 07.11.2016 in M.C. No. 222/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Belagavi is set aside in so far as it relates to finding on cruelty and petition in M.C. No. 222/2015 is allowed in part on the ground of desertion and marriage dated 22.12.1997 between the petitioner and respondent is dissolved by a decree of divorce. 17. The petitioner-husband shall pay Rs. 20 lakhs to the respondent-wife as observed in paragraph No. 15 of the judgment. 18. No order as to cost.