JUDGMENT : GOUTAM BHADURI, J. 1. Heard. 2. The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 385-A/2013 wherein an application preferred by the appellant/husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion was dismissed by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the instant appeal is filed by the husband. 3...... (i) As per allegation, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 24.5.2001, at that time husband was working as a Shiksha Karmi at village Badra. It is stated that for sometime, wife joined him at the place of working at village Badra, but, subsequently, she refused to stay with him on the ground that she does not want to stay at rural place/village. Consequently, it is further stated that the wife used to abuse father and mother of the husband. Thereafter, it being so, husband and wife started living at Sargaon on a rented premises. During their stay, in the year 2003, son Utkarsh was born. Subsequently, it is stated that the transfer of the husband was made to village Baror. Again, she refused to stay at village Baror. Consequently, husband was forced to take rented premises at Marwahi which was 17 kms away from Baror, but, with the passage of time, she wanted to stay at city Bilaspur and insisted the husband/appellant to stay at city. In such circumstances, on an application made by the husband, he was transferred to Khamaria within Block Masturi. At that time because of the insistence of the wife, he stayed at Bilaspur city at Rajkishore Nagar since 2007. (ii) Despite that, dispute started between them as threat was extended by the wife to inculpate the husband and his family members in a case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and all of a sudden in year 2010, without consent of the husband, wife left the company of husband for which notice was served to the wife on 23.6.2010. Since, the wife did not join the company of the husband, the husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein a compromise was effected on 10.1.2012 and wife again started living with husband, but, those state of affairs did not continue and on 24.1.2012, wife left the company of the husband. Since, the wife did not join the company of the husband, the husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein a compromise was effected on 10.1.2012 and wife again started living with husband, but, those state of affairs did not continue and on 24.1.2012, wife left the company of the husband. It is alleged that subsequently, on 01.2.2012, the wife consumed mortien liquid and allegation was attributed over head of husband in order to send him to jail. The husband, thereafter, made an application to the higher officials of Police to conduct an enquiry and in the enquiry, it was revealed that wife on her own had consumed mortein liquid to level allegation over the husband. Therefore, the divorce was sought for on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 4. The wife denied all the adverse allegations and submitted that she was in the company of the husband as and when required. She was subjected to torture as mobile phone was not given to her to talk to her family members and she never deserted the husband for any unreasonable reasons. It was stated that she was subjected to torture for other reasons also. It was further stated that forcefully the child was taken into the custody by the husband and when she wanted to meet him, she was not allowed to do so, therefore, it cannot be said that she never wanted to discharge her parental and maternal obligations. 5. Learned Family Court on the basis of pleading, framed the issue of cruelty and desertion and recorded the finding into negative. Being aggrieved by such finding, the instant appeal is filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the facts would show that since posting of husband was at rural area, wife refused to join his company, for which, husband was forced to take a rented accommodation in the locality which was far away from the place of working. He would further submit that despite the limited source of income, he was forced to act in such manner, it would amount to cruelty and it can be attributed to the wife that she refused to join the husband without any lawful reason. He would further submit that despite the limited source of income, he was forced to act in such manner, it would amount to cruelty and it can be attributed to the wife that she refused to join the husband without any lawful reason. He would further submit that during the posting at different places at village Badra, Sargaon, Marwahi and Masturi, at every point of time because of the conduct of the wife, husband was forced to take different accommodations. It is again submitted that evidence is on record that would show that wife consumed mortein liquid only with an intention to inculpate husband and his family members in false criminal case. He would further submit that when such report was made to the higher officials of Police, an enquiry was drawn and it revealed that wife herself has consumed the mortein liquid when the husband was not at home, this was only to create a ground for cruelty, as such, the trial Court failed to appreciate this fact and came to a wrong finding. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent would submit that perusal of the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, content thereof and the compromise would show the state of mind of the husband. He would further submit that reading of the order would show that wife was not allowed to keep a mobile which is a minimum mode of communication to talk to her family members and she was also forced not to pursue her studies further. Referring to the statements of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 along with DW-1, he would submit that the statements of witnesses would show that categorical statements have been made that wife has not made any report to inculpate the husband and even the suggestion was given to the wife that why such report has not been made by her and she replied that for the reason of the society and the surrounding circumstances. He would again submit that by evaluating the statements of the plaintiff witnesses, it shows that the dispute was of trivial nature not to the extent of grant of divorce and even during the conciliation certain promises were made by the husband which were not fulfilled. He would again submit that by evaluating the statements of the plaintiff witnesses, it shows that the dispute was of trivial nature not to the extent of grant of divorce and even during the conciliation certain promises were made by the husband which were not fulfilled. In the result, the evidence do not show that it is to the extent of cruelty which would allow the husband to get decree of divorce along with ground of desertion. He would therefore submit that order of the learned Family Court is well merited and does not call for any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. 9. The husband in his pleading and statements, on the first part, primarily tried to canvass the fact that while he was posted at village Badra, after the marriage, the wife refused to stay there and insisted for residence at Sargaon, therefore, they shifted to Sargaon and stayed together. So at the behest of wife he had to stay other than his place of working. It is not disputed that during such stay at Sargaon, a child was born to them in the year 2003. Subsequently, the husband was transferred from Badra to block Marwahi at village Baror. As per the evidence, village Baror wherein husband was posted was 17 kms away from Marwahi and wife refused to go to Baror. Consequently, the husband took a rented place at Marwahi and used to commute for 17 kms. He further stated that he filed an application for transfer and subsequently his posting was transferred to Khamaria at block Masturi. At that time they started staying at Rajkishore Nagar in Bilaspur city. 10. According to the statement of husband, the wife refused to stay at the village at the place of posting of the husband. When such statements are looked into along with statements of wife, the facts would emerge that wife insisted for stay at a place where the amenities might have been better available for livelihood and better life. The hard reality which is existing in the village about non-availability of amenities of livelihood cannot be ignored and in such circumstances if the wife insisted to stay at a reasonably better place which is nearby and having better civil amenities, it cannot be stated that wife refused to join the company of the husband. The hard reality which is existing in the village about non-availability of amenities of livelihood cannot be ignored and in such circumstances if the wife insisted to stay at a reasonably better place which is nearby and having better civil amenities, it cannot be stated that wife refused to join the company of the husband. The evidence would show that after husband who was posted at Badra in the year 2001 when started staying at Sargaon during year 2003, the wife was with him and a child was born in the year 2003 which would show that wife was willing to join the company of the husband. It is obvious in the daily routine life that people commute for a long distance from one place to another. The distance which was alleged to have bothered the husband for traveling to attribute cruelty to the wife appears to be unreasonable. The fact that husband used to commute for 11 and 17 Kms cannot hold the sway in favour of cruelty as it would be a normal struggle in the routine life for a people at large of which the husband/appellant cannot be said to be an exception. 11. Now coming back to the document Exhibit P15, the order of compromise wherein certain terms are incorporated also clears the doubts. The said order was passed in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act instituted by the husband. Perusal of the said order containing the facts as enumerated therein shows that certain lands were purchased in the name of husband at the behest of wife, which would be transferred in the name of wife and child and original transfer documents were agreed to be given by husband to wife. Further, parties agreed that the husband would give a new cellphone to wife to allow her to talk to her relatives and no objections would be made to it. Another term of compromise was with respect to completion of D.ED examination. It was agreed that the husband would not object or restrict the wife to pursue her studies further. 12. The said terms of compromise when are further seen along with statement of the witness PW-2 Jitendra Yadav at paragraph 16, he has stated that before him some dispute took place between appellant/husband and respondent/wife, in the year 2002-03, as wife insisted the husband to stay at Bilaspur. 12. The said terms of compromise when are further seen along with statement of the witness PW-2 Jitendra Yadav at paragraph 16, he has stated that before him some dispute took place between appellant/husband and respondent/wife, in the year 2002-03, as wife insisted the husband to stay at Bilaspur. Husband used to object the stay at Bilaspur for the reason that his earning is less. With respect to the desertion, he further stated that in February, 2010 wife did not leave along with her ornaments and cloths to her parental house, at Mopka. He further stated that wife has not made any demand of money from husband. Likewise, PW-3 Shivam Pandey at paragraph 7 has stated that he has also counseled the husband that he should stay at Bilaspur thereafter they started staying at Rajkishore Nagar at city Bilaspur and he further stated that while husband was posted at Marwahi, he insisted Mahesh (husband) to stay at Bilaspur. Likewise, the statement of PW-4 Rakesh Gouraha shows that wife had never insisted or pressurized the husband to stay at Mopka, at her parental home. He admits that wife did not quarrel with the husband without any lawful cause and he also admits the fact that husband Mahesh Kumar Pandey's salary was not satisfactory, as such, the wife wanted to pursue a private job and insisted appellant/husband to stay at Mopka to get support. He further stated that quarrel between the parties was trivial in nature as happens in the normal family. 13. These statements of the witnesses when are further examined along with statement of PW-1/husband, a specific suggestion was given at paragraph 25 to him that wife is ready to stay with him and does not want divorce. He answered that wife wanted to stay at city and not at village. Further a specific suggestion was made if wife is willing to stay at village with him, whether he is ready to keep her. In answer to it he refused to take her with him. The statement of the witnesses would show that wife insisted for stay at place of better amenities when the husband was posted at village however, she never insisted to desert. In answer to it he refused to take her with him. The statement of the witnesses would show that wife insisted for stay at place of better amenities when the husband was posted at village however, she never insisted to desert. The plaintiff witness on the contrary has stated that quarrel between the husband and wife was trivial in nature, therefore, it cannot be inflated to the extent of cruelty for which divorce can be sought for. 14. The compromise which was drawn in Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act would further show the reasons for which the wife must have been staying apart. To communicate as per free will is a fundamental right. The right of the girl when married cannot be eclipsed with the restriction of communication which is essential ingredient of part of life as compared to her when not married. So far the right of unmarried girl would be at par with a married one as the marriage cannot be put as an embargo and rider for restricted communication. Further more, the state of affair that if the wife wanted to support her husband by doing a private job and therefore, wanted to pursue her studies, this appears to be reasonable and contrary would show that wife actually wanted to support the husband. Even after the marriage, if a girl wants to pursue her studies, it cannot be restricted at the will of her husband as marriages are not meant for putting a rider for any such higher education or studies. If a male can pursue his studies after marriage then a girl cannot be restricted to do so. 15. The husband has stated that wife has consumed mortein liquid and tried to attribute allegation on the husband for which a report was made and an enquiry was carried out. The reference was made to the Exhibit P6 of the enquiry report. Wife on the contrary has denied such allegations and maintained the stand that she was forced to drink mortein liquid. Perusal of Annexure P6 do not show that how the enquiry was conducted whether the part of wife was heard or not. Consequently, this Exhibit P6 cannot be given a precedence over the statement of the wife and statement of plaintiffs witness as nothing has been additionally proved to establish the same. 16. Perusal of Annexure P6 do not show that how the enquiry was conducted whether the part of wife was heard or not. Consequently, this Exhibit P6 cannot be given a precedence over the statement of the wife and statement of plaintiffs witness as nothing has been additionally proved to establish the same. 16. Having regard to the facts of the case and foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that finding of the trial Court does not require any interference. 17. During course of argument, the parties were directed to place on record their respective source of income and assets held by them. Both the parties have filed their affidavit. According to the affidavit filed by the wife she did not have any source of income except Rs. 8,000/- per month received as maintenance apart from few gold ornaments below Rs. 25,000/-. The affidavit of the husband would show that he is receiving a salary of Rs. 60,279/- and certain properties have also been shown like immovable property purchased by the husband. Having regard to the facts of the case and having considered the over all assets and liabilities of the husband, we deem it proper to order for payment of maintenance amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the wife which would be deducted at source, which would be reciprocally increased in percentage of increase as and when salary is increased. 18. Accordingly, in view of above observation and direction, the instant appeal stands disposed of. No costs. 19. Certified copy as per rules.