JUDGMENT Arindam Sinha, J The matrimonial appeal is at instance of the husband. It was taken up for hearing yesterday, when we perused the materials in the lower Court record. We adjourned the hearing on prayer of Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for respondent-wife and fixed it today. We had requested Ms. Mohapatra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant-husband to prepare a chart regarding her submission on the course taken by the matrimonial proceeding before the Court below, pursuant to her client's petition being struck off and thereupon restored on payment of arrear maintenance. Mr. Mishra was requested to point out from the written statement his client having said that the marriage was consummated. 2. Regarding course taken by the matrimonial proceeding in the Court below on, inter alia, the husband's petition struck down, the sequence of events began with a negotiated marriage solemnized on 5th December, 2003. Appellant-husband had alleged that respondent- wife left his Kolkata residence with her parents without his consent, firstly on 15th January, 2004 and later, on 29th May, 2004. On 22nd June, 2006 appellant-husband filed for divorce before civil Judge (Senior Division) at Berhampur. Respondent-wife filed for maintenance. On 8th May, 2007, civil Judge (Senior Division), Berhampur granted Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance and Rs. 5,000/- litigation cost. Appellant-husband challenged the order by way of revision. Respondent-wife similarly also filed revision for enhancement. By order dated 31st August, 2010, the learned single Judge enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 5,000/- and the litigation cost to Rs. 10,000/-. Ms. Mohapatra produces the order for our perusal. There is no illumination in it of facts in the case leading to the appeal. 3. The original matrimonial proceeding was transferred to family Court, Berhampur and registered as C.P. no.38 of 2010. By order dated 21st May, 2011, the family Court struck down the pleadings of appellant-husband for non-payment of maintenance. Respondent-wife then filed for execution leading to appeal therefrom by appellant- husband. On order dated 20th December, 2016 the earlier appeal was disposed of and pleadings of appellant-husband in the civil proceeding restored. Sometime in year 2017 respondent-wife filed counter claim praying for decree of restitution of conjugal rights. By impugned judgment dated 31st July, 2017 the civil proceeding of appellant- husband was dismissed and counter claim of respondent-wife allowed on contest. 4. On query made by us to Mr. Sometime in year 2017 respondent-wife filed counter claim praying for decree of restitution of conjugal rights. By impugned judgment dated 31st July, 2017 the civil proceeding of appellant- husband was dismissed and counter claim of respondent-wife allowed on contest. 4. On query made by us to Mr. Mishra he submits, it cannot be said that his client had not specifically pleaded there was consummation. He draws attention to paragraph 9 in her written statement. He relies on the entire paragraph and places it. We reproduce below the paragraph. '9. The allegations made in the Plaint to the effect that during the short period of stay with the Plaintiff, the Defendant always avoided the Plaintiff to make a successful cohabitation and avoided physical relationship under some pretext or other and that she also used to apply turmeric paste on all her body before going to bed almost every day in order to avoid physical contact with the Plaintiff owing very well that the Plaintiff disliked turmeric application and that the request and advise of the Plaintiff (he being a doctor) to the Defendant to consult a Gynecologist/Psychologist for her examination and treatment for frigidity and lack of interest in conjugal relationship was refused vociferously by the defendant and her parents and that the defendant threatened the Plaintiff over phone many times to kill him by engaging local goondas also telling that she would spoil the service career of the Plaintiff if he tried to have physical relationship with her or make any complaints against her or utter any word against the behavior and attitude of her parents and that therefore finding no other alternative and under alleged severe state of mental torture, the Plaintiff lodged the alleged F.I.R. at Baidyanathpur P.S. on 03.07.2004 and at the Mahila Police Station, Berhampur on 04.07.2004 to counsel the Defendant and her parents and to allow the defendant to join the Plaintiff and that inspite of alleged several approaches by Police authorities, the Defendant and her parents avoided reconciliation etc. (vide Paras 9 to 11 of the Plaint) are all neither true nor correct and most of the said allegations are false, vauge and malafide in character. (vide Paras 9 to 11 of the Plaint) are all neither true nor correct and most of the said allegations are false, vauge and malafide in character. The Defendant and her parents are not at all aware of the alleged Police reports till they are disclosed by the Plaintiff in his notice through advocate dt.14-10-2004 for the first time and that no Police person had approached the Defendant or her parents in that regard and therefore the question of alleged avoidance of reconciliation did not arise for consideration.' 5. Mr. Mishra moves on to oral evidence adduced by his client. Upon query from Court on there being two documents that had been tendered by his client; firstly, a police complaint made pursuant to his client and her mother having visited appellant-husband at his residence in Bhubaneswar on 23rd January, 2017 and secondly, charge-sheet filed in the case initiated thereafter, the complaint treated to be FIR in Berhampur Mahila P.S. Case no.4 of 2017 dated 25th January, 2017 Mr. Mishra submits, those were the documents tendered by his client. Further document was tendered by subsequent witness. He points out from evidence-in-chief in shape of affidavit of his client, there is clear averment that soon after the marriage she was sent to her in-law's house at Brahmapur. She led conjugal life therein for about a month. We reproduce below sub-paragraph in paragraph 4 of her affidavit as relied upon by Mr. Mishra. '4. xxx xxx xxx Soon after the marriage, I was sent to my in-laws house here at Brahmapur. I led conjugal life therein for about a month. On the 2nd day of marriage, the in-laws and maternal aunt-in-law whispered among themselves being dissatisfied with the dowry amount and articles. On the third day of marriage my maternal-aunt-in-law slapped on my cheek abusing as to why I did not take Suit and Patto for her husband and herself. My husband and parents-in-laws expressed their dissatisfaction over the dowry amount and household articles and appliances and demanded to bring more. I tolerated all insults and aspersions unleashed on me.' (emphasis supplied) He reiterates, there was clear assertion by his client of consummation. In the circumstances it cannot be said cruelty was inflicted by his client on appellant-husband. 6. Mr. Mishra then relies on paragraphs 19 and 23 in impugned judgment. The paragraphs are reproduced below. '19. I tolerated all insults and aspersions unleashed on me.' (emphasis supplied) He reiterates, there was clear assertion by his client of consummation. In the circumstances it cannot be said cruelty was inflicted by his client on appellant-husband. 6. Mr. Mishra then relies on paragraphs 19 and 23 in impugned judgment. The paragraphs are reproduced below. '19. Law is settled that to make out a case divorce on the ground of desertion, four conditions are required to be fulfilled. (a) Factum of separation; (b) the intention to bring marital life to an end; (c) without consent of other spouse; and (d) without reasonable cause. In the present case in hand, as per the evidence of the husband it appears that the marriage ceremony took place in the last month of 2003, the wife left the matrimonial house in the middle part of 2004 and did not returned. The allegations made by the wife against the husband in respect of ill-treatment on the plea of demand of dowry shown by the husband gains corroboration from D.W.2 her father. Living separately for a continuous period of more than two years without any reasonable cause attracted the provision U/s. 13(1)(b) of the Act. In this case, there is no allegation of physical cruelty. The husband has taken a plea of cruelty. The allegations made by the wife in the fact and circumstances of this case and the evidence adduced, it clearly sows that the wife has interest to reside with her husband and filing of criminal cases against the husband is only to change the husband attitude as stated in her evidence does not lead cause any mental depression, harassment, agony, and leads to mental cruelty unlike the case of physical cruelty. Further it is stated by the wife that, under the compelling circumstance she left the house of the husband and the husband was never honour the dignity of the wife, physically and mentally tortured her on the plea of demand of more dowry. xxx xxx xxx xxx 23. On perusal of the case record and evidence adduced by the parties, the petition filed by the husband in the year 2010 seeking divorce from the defendant, the petitioner has not raised any sorts of cruelty that meted out on him except filing of criminal case in the later stage by the wife. xxx xxx xxx xxx 23. On perusal of the case record and evidence adduced by the parties, the petition filed by the husband in the year 2010 seeking divorce from the defendant, the petitioner has not raised any sorts of cruelty that meted out on him except filing of criminal case in the later stage by the wife. On the above score, it is clear that the manner of cruelty as alleged in the petition for divorce does not received any support from the averments made in the petition filed by the husband. Facts remain that after leaving at the matrimonial home in the year, 2004 the defendant-wife is not resided with the petitioner-husband in any place till filing of the petition for divorce. When the parties are not living together at any place during the above mentioned period starting from 2004 till filing of the divorce petition i.e. in the year, 2010, the question of any kind of cruelty to have been meted out by the defendant-wife on the petitioner does not arise. In a matter of domestic quarrel between husband and wife, it is hardly possible to adduce ocular evidence. This is generally true. But, at the same time, a mere allegation and more so, when it is so vague can not necessarily be an answer to the petition. It should be sufficient for the husband just to make an allegation of cruelty to seek relief of divorce. This will be abhorrent to the conception of a Hindu Marriage. Where direct evidence is not available, it is an absolute requirement that the petition must contain the allegations with precision and with all necessary details.' (emphasis supplied) He submits, his client was successful in the Court below and there was no occasion therefore for her to prefer either an appeal or a cross objection. 7. Ms. Mohapatra relies on judgments of the Supreme Court. (i) K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 , paragraphs 30 to 35. She submits, the wife after long years of desertion making counter claim to cohabit, itself amounts cruelty. (ii) Malathi Ravi, v. B. V. Ravi, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 640 , paragraph 19. Ms. Mohapatra submits, the judgment is declaration of law on desertion. We reproduce below relied upon paragraph 19. '19. She submits, the wife after long years of desertion making counter claim to cohabit, itself amounts cruelty. (ii) Malathi Ravi, v. B. V. Ravi, reported in (2014) 7 SCC 640 , paragraph 19. Ms. Mohapatra submits, the judgment is declaration of law on desertion. We reproduce below relied upon paragraph 19. '19. Dealing with the concept of desertion, this Court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey has ruled thus:(SCC pp. 80- 81, para8)- '8 'Desertion', for the purpose of seeking divorce under the Act, means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent and without reasonable cause. In other words it is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things. Desertion, therefore, means withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations i.e. not permitting or allowing and facilitating the cohabitation between the parties. The proof of desertion has to be considered by taking into consideration the concept of marriage which in law legalises the sexual relationship between man and woman in the society for the perpetuation of race, permitting lawful indulgence in passion to prevent licentiousness and for procreation of children. Desertion is not a single act complete in itself, it is a continuous course of conduct to be determined under the facts and circumstances of each case. After referring to a host of authorities and the views of various authors, this Court in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah v. Prabhavati1 held that if a spouse abandons the other in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion.' (emphasis supplied) 8. Ms. Mohapatra submits, there was clear demonstration by pleading and evidence, of cruelty inflicted by respondent-wife upon her client and thereupon desertion. The Court below failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances and erred in dismissing her client's civil proceeding to go on and grant decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 9. On perusal of the pleadings and evidence we find, there is no dispute it was a negotiated marriage held on 5th December, 2003. Appellant-husband had alleged cruelty in, inter alia, paragraphs 2 to 5 of his petition. He said respondent-wife deserted him without his consent on 15th January, 2004. 9. On perusal of the pleadings and evidence we find, there is no dispute it was a negotiated marriage held on 5th December, 2003. Appellant-husband had alleged cruelty in, inter alia, paragraphs 2 to 5 of his petition. He said respondent-wife deserted him without his consent on 15th January, 2004. Further pleading in his petition is lodging of diary on 3rd July, 2004 and issuance of advocate's notice dated 14th October, 2004. We have not been shown that the diary papers were tendered in evidence. However, there is admission by respondent-wife of having received the advocate's notice dated 14th October, 2004. Exhibit 'C' is letter written by father of respondent-wife in reply to the advocate's notice, tendered by him. In the letter the father said, inter alia, he had gone to Kolkata to visit appellant's family on 12th January, 2004 with prior notice. He stayed there for three days. Respondent-wife was suffering from some ailments and she looked anemic. As such for treatment and change of place she was brought to Berhampur, with permission. Appellant-husband had visited his in-laws residence at Berhampur on 4th February, 2004 along with his mother, father and maternal uncle. There was demand of a car or its value to be given as dowry. There was lot of discussion, whereupon father of respondent-wife requested father of appellant- husband to return Rs.1.5 lakhs given by respondent-wife in shape of self-cheque no.801224 dated 6th December, 2003. There is no supporting document tendered regarding the cheque or its encashment. There is allegation that appellant-husband joined as medical officer at Nabrangpur and during holidays he used to stay in Berhampur and sometimes respondent-wife used to accompany him to his house. There is further allegation that on 28th May, 2004 appellant-husband came to Berhampur and informed that he had arranged a house in Nabrangpur. Respondent-wife accompanied appellant-husband to his residence that day. On next morning the father received phone call from respondent-wife, who requested him to meet her urgently. On going to house of appellant-husband the father came to know that his daughter was scolded by appellant-husband and his mother, beaten and throttled the previous night. As a result she had to spend the entire night on the verandah out of fear of death. He noticed there was bruise injury at the left wrist and swollen injury at the back of the head. As a result she had to spend the entire night on the verandah out of fear of death. He noticed there was bruise injury at the left wrist and swollen injury at the back of the head. This was not the only incident but on several earlier occasions appellant- husband and his mother had tortured her physically and mentally. The father also said that appellant-husband had made mistake on going to the police station for mediation. He denied the statement that his daughter had returned taking gold ornaments, household articles and wearing apparels. He however said that she carried along with her some daily use clothes. 10. We then perused evidence-in-chief in shape of affidavit filed by appellant-husband and his cross-examination. Appellant-husband reiterated statements in his petition by way of evidence-in-chief. In cross-examination he revealed he was living with a partner and had been blessed with a son. The cross-examination took place on 19th May, 2017. The evidence was appellant-husband was living with his partner for last four years. Appellant-husband further said in cross- examination that he had visited his father-in-law's house last in May, 2004. He said it is a fact he wrote letter to his wife stating he was always ready to forgive her. He denied co-habitation took place during stay of respondent-wife with him. He said also, it is a fact on 23rd January, 2017 respondent-wife and her mother visited his house situated in Bhubaneswar and after alleged incident a report was lodged in the police station. He also said to be a fact that in year, 2015 a dowry case had been registered in his name. 11. There were other party witnesses of appellant-husband. P.W.4 was one Sri Bijay Chandra Padhy. He had filed evidence-in-chief in shape of affidavit and was cross-examined on 10th July, 2017. He said that he knew father of appellant-husband as they were working together in State Bank of India. Paragraph 3 from his evidence-in- chief is reproduced below. '3) In the year, 2005 Pitambara Padhi requested me to visit the house of Gayatri and solve the matrimonial difference between Gayatri and Deepak. Accordingly I had visited the house of Gayatri at Ashok Nagar, Berhampur in 2005 July. Pravakar Panda (father of Gayatri) bluntly refused to sent Gayatri to her in-law's house and put a strange condition that Deepak should come to their house and stay with them permanently. Accordingly I had visited the house of Gayatri at Ashok Nagar, Berhampur in 2005 July. Pravakar Panda (father of Gayatri) bluntly refused to sent Gayatri to her in-law's house and put a strange condition that Deepak should come to their house and stay with them permanently. One year thereafter Pitambar Padhi again requested me to visit the house of Gayatri and convince her father to send Gayatri to her in-law's house. Accordingly I had visited the house of Gayatri at Baikuntha Nagar. This time Pravakar Panda did not entertain me to talk soon the issue and asking me to leave the place. I state on oath that due to non co- operation and irrational approach of Pravakar Panda the matrimonial difference between the parties could not be resolved.' (emphasis supplied) His entire cross-examination is reproduced below. 'Cross Examination by the opposite party-wife: 2. I cannot say the exact date of the marriage ceremony of the parties. So also the date of my visit along with the father of the petitioner to the house of the respondent. The father of the petitioner is my colleague. 3. It is not a fact that I never visited the house of Gayatri Panda and that not requested her father to send her daughter to the house of the petitioner at any point of time and that I am deposing falsehood at the instance of the father of the petitioner. 4. I do not know the cause of the dispute arose in between the parties after the marriage ceremony.' 12. Paragraph 9 from the written statement of respondent-wife already stands reproduced above. There is no clear statement asserting there was co-habitation. In absence of clear averment against the contrary, asserted and deposed by appellant-husband, subsequent assertion from the box by way of oral testimony leads to a situation of there being claim of evidence led in absence of pleading. The written statement is reproduction of allegations made by the husband and denial thereof. There is precious little else by way of assertion. It is well settled that no evidence can be led on a plea not raised in the pleadings and that no amount of evidence can cure defect in the pleadings. Reference may be made to judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh reported in (2000) 8 SCC 191 , paragraph 7. 13. It is well settled that no evidence can be led on a plea not raised in the pleadings and that no amount of evidence can cure defect in the pleadings. Reference may be made to judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh v. Janmeja Singh reported in (2000) 8 SCC 191 , paragraph 7. 13. Respondent-wife filed evidence-in-chief in shape of affidavit and she was cross-examined. We have already reproduced above part of paragraph 4 from her evidence on affidavit. In it there is allegation that on third day of marriage her matrimonial aunt-in-law slapped on her cheek abusing as to why she had not taken suit and patto for her husband and herself. In paragraph 4 of her deposition dated 15th July, 2017 in cross-examination, respondent-wife said she did not recollect exactly that she had mentioned in her pleading that after three days of marriage ceremony her matrimonial aunt-in-law gave a slap on her cheek saying as to why she did not bring 'Patto Saree' and 'Suit' for herself and her husband. In fact there was no such pleading. We have already seen that father of respondent-wife alleged in exhibit 'C' that he had taken her away in January, 2004 because she looked unwell and anemic. There is corresponding assertion by respondent-wife in paragraph 6 of her evidence on affidavit that for health recovery she was brought to her father's residence by her parents, to give proper treatment. In cross-examination she also said, during her stay at matrimonial house she was ill. She further stated in her cross- examination that she had filed two numbers of criminal cases against her husband and in-laws but intention for filing above cases is not to send them to jail custody. She denied in cross-examination that she never cooperated with appellant-husband for leading a happy and peaceful conjugal life or denied sexual life or opposed treatment as suggested by her husband. 14. It will appear from above reproduced paragraph 19 of impugned judgment, the Court below said, law is settled regarding making out a case for divorce on ground of desertion. Four conditions are required to be fulfilled. They are factum of separation, the intention to bring marital life to an end, separation without consent of the other spouse and without reasonable cause. The learned Judge went on to find that in the case there is no allegation of physical cruelty. Four conditions are required to be fulfilled. They are factum of separation, the intention to bring marital life to an end, separation without consent of the other spouse and without reasonable cause. The learned Judge went on to find that in the case there is no allegation of physical cruelty. Her leaving in January, 2004 has been said by her in evidence-in-chief was her ill health though she also alleged being slapped by the maternal aunt. The father by exhibit 'C' had cited her ill health. Further allegation made out by the father in his reply to the advocate's notice is that subsequently appellant-husband took up job in Nabrangpur and occasionally visited his in-laws to be with his wife and sometimes the wife accompanied him to Nabrangpur. This allegation is to be considered with subsequent allegation that thereafter appellant- husband had informed he had found a house in Nabrangpur. As such, where the husband and wife stayed in Nabrangpur prior to the husband arranging house is not clear. It emerges from exhibit 'C' and evidence of respondent-wife, in May, 2004 she came back with her father from Nabrangpur house of appellant-husband. By exhibit 'C' the father alleged physical injury discovered by him on person of his daughter. There is absence of any police complaint made in May, 2004 or any time thereafter. Thus it transpires respondent-wife went to Nabrangpur with appellant-wife on 28th May, 2004 and came away the next day. Impugned judgment came much later on 31st July, 2017, after respondent-wife had suddenly, with her mother visited the husband's house in January, 2017. The sequence of introduction of allegations made in the evidence on affidavit by respondent-wife is that she first stated about appellant-husband's relationship with one Lopamudra Upadhyaya and thereafter her sudden visit with her mother to his house on 23rd January, 2017. There is nothing in her evidence on affidavit to give us illumination as to what prompted her to suddenly visit her husband at Bhubaneswar on 23rd January, 2017. The police complaint was two days later, on 25th January, 2017. 15. We reproduce below paragraph 18 from the petition of appellant-husband, for divorce. '18. There is nothing in her evidence on affidavit to give us illumination as to what prompted her to suddenly visit her husband at Bhubaneswar on 23rd January, 2017. The police complaint was two days later, on 25th January, 2017. 15. We reproduce below paragraph 18 from the petition of appellant-husband, for divorce. '18. That the cause of action of filing of this plaint arose on the imposition of cruel treatment on the plaintiff by his wife (the defendant) since after marriage and on 15.01.2004 when she left Kolkata residence with her parents without consent of plaintiff and on 28.05.2004 when she last visited the matrimonial home at Berhampur and when the defendant willfully deserted her husband (the plaintiff) on 29.05.2004 without any lawful jurisdiction and without the consent of the plaintiff.' (emphasis supplied) 16. On having perused the material before us as in the lower Court record, we are in agreement with finding of the Court below that there was no cruelty in the case. Hence, the only issue for adjudication of the civil proceeding with prayer for dissolution of marriage was clause (i-b) in sub-section (1) of section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. We reproduce below the clause. '(i-b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.' 17. Documentary evidence by way of exhibit 'C' is allegation of father of respondent-wife that in January, 2004 with consent he took away his daughter for treatment. However, his further allegation in the letter is that on 29th May, 2004 his daughter had made urgent call asking him to go and meet her. He discovered she had been subjected to physical assault bearing injury and took her away. There was no complaint made to the police regarding the physical assault on 29th May, 2004. Long after, respondent-wife had made surprise visit to house of appellant-husband on 23rd January, 2017. There was allegation that appellant-husband allowed them to enter in the house, locked the door and physically assaulted them. Police complaint was made on 25th January, 2017. 18. The Supreme Court in Malathi Ravi (supra) relied upon its earlier decision in Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 . Paragraph 8 from Savitri Pandey (supra) was extracted and reproduced in paragraph 19 of Malathi Ravi (supra). Police complaint was made on 25th January, 2017. 18. The Supreme Court in Malathi Ravi (supra) relied upon its earlier decision in Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 . Paragraph 8 from Savitri Pandey (supra) was extracted and reproduced in paragraph 19 of Malathi Ravi (supra). The Court said, desertion is intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one's spouse by the other without the other's consent and without reasonable cause. In other words it is a total repudiation of the obligations of the marriage. On analyzing the evidence we have not been able to find a cause proved for the wife to have left the husband. Without delving deep into whether there was consummation of the marriage, we have been unable to find there was consent on the part of the husband for the wife leaving him. The allegation of slapping incident is contradicted by illness and going away to recover. The evidence on side of respondent-wife is unreliable. The second separation too was alleged to be consequence of physical assault but not proved. On appellant-husband having arranged house in Nabrangpur, the wife had gone on 28th May, 2004, but spent the night in the verandah and came away on 29th May, 2004. This coupled with the husband shown and admitting in cross- examination he had written a letter saying he forgives his wife convinces us that respondent-wife had intention to permanently forsake and abandon appellant-husband. We have no doubt in our mind that there was total repudiation by respondent-wife of her obligations towards the marriage. There being clear finding of no cruelty and correctly, preponderance of probabilities is that the wife made the surprise visit to create an incident and later lodged police complaint. In all the while after 29th May, 2004, respondent-wife who had, it is clear, a supportive father, did not file for restitution of conjugal rights. K. Srinivas Rao (supra) on the paragraphs relied upon by Ms. Mohapatra, has no application to facts of this case. 19. Impugned judgment is set aside in appeal. The civil proceeding in C.P. no.38 of 2010 is allowed. The marriage between the parties solemnized on 5th December, 2003 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. K. Srinivas Rao (supra) on the paragraphs relied upon by Ms. Mohapatra, has no application to facts of this case. 19. Impugned judgment is set aside in appeal. The civil proceeding in C.P. no.38 of 2010 is allowed. The marriage between the parties solemnized on 5th December, 2003 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case we direct that monies already paid till date by appellant- husband to respondent-wife, in aggregate, will constitute her permanent alimony. 20. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.