JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been preferred by the husband-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2012, passed by the District Judge, Una in HMA Petition No. 25 of 2009 titled Rajesh Kumar vs. Shashi whereby petition preferred by husband-appellant under Section 13(1)(ia), 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion, has been dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through record as well as case law, referred during the arguments. 3. Marriage of husband-appellant and wife-respondent was solemnized in the year 1991 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Out of wedlock, during co-habitation after marriage, three daughters and one son were born. According to husband, in December, 1999 respondent/wife complained about interference by mother of husband in liberty of wife in absence of appellant and she compelled the appellant to live separate from his mother, as she expressed unwillingness to look after his old aged mother for an indefinite period, but he being only son was unable to leave his mother whereupon the wife got annoyed and in the month of December, 1999, in his absence, after administering intoxicated pills to his mother left the house along with luggage, ornaments etc. whereafter, appellant went to parental house of respondent, but despite his efforts, respondent did not agree to live with appellant with threat that in case she was forced then she would consume poison and, ultimately, after 9 years of marriage, appellant was constrained to file petition for dissolution of marriage. 4. Respondent, in response to claim of appellant, had alleged that she was maltreated for not bringing sufficient dowry and also for giving birth to three daughters and appellant was addicted to various vices like drinking alcohol etc., and he used to beat her badly under the influence of liquor on number of times at Kanpur but she tolerated this with the hope that good sense would prevail upon the appellant and his family members but all in vain. As per respondent, in the month of January 2000, she was turned out by appellant from the matrimonial house by saying that he did not want to keep her as wife and in the same month, appellant came to her parental house and compromised the matter and compromise was reduced into writing, but even thereafter he did not mend his ways. 5. In compromise, the appellant had agreed that in future, he and his family members would not demand any dowry, money and not beat the respondent and he would take respondent and minor children with him within 3-4 days but appellant never returned thereafter. Respondent was unable to bear the expenses of her day-to-day life as well as their minor children and, therefore, she was constrained to file a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which was allowed in the year 2002. The allegation of misbehaviour with parents of appellant by respondent had been denied by respondent. In her examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination, respondent had stated that she liked the appellant and wanted to live with him and he may do what he liked and she was also ready to bear his habit of consuming liquor. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that matrimonial ties between the parties have become irretrievable and they are residing separately since 1999, i.e. about more than 24 years and, therefore, to do complete justice it would be appropriate to dissolve the marriage as couple cannot stay together, and considering irretrievable breakdown and long period of separation, the appeal deserves to be allowed because parties can never live together. To substantiate his plea, he has referred Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , Manish Goel vs. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393 and R. Srinivas Kumar vs. R. Shametha, (2019) 9 SCC 409 . 7. Learned counsel for respondent has contended that appellant has miserably failed to prove the allegations of ill-treatment to his mother as well as desertion by respondent without any cause and he has further submitted that there are only false allegations with single statement of appellant and even his mother and sister have not come forward to support him and all allegations are concocted and same have not been corroborated by reliable evidence. According to him, it was the respondent, who was ousted from house by appellant and otherwise also, her life was made miserable due to liquor addiction and despite that she resided with appellant for a considerable long time and even thereafter, she was ready and willing to live with appellant but it was appellant who did not take her despite entering into compromise and, till date, he is not ready to keep her and his children and, therefore, cruelty is not on the part of wife but on the part of husband. 8. Plea of appellant that he was keen to keep the respondent with him and, therefore, he visited, time and again, the parental house of respondent does not appear to be true as at any point of time he has not filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. His allegation of desertion by respondent leading to cruelty to him causing him to file divorce petition is also falsified from the written compromise Ext.PW3/A wherein he has admitted his guilt by giving undertaking that he and his family would not harass and beat the respondent and would not demand dowry and he would take respondent back after two days. There is no rebuttal to this document. This compromise has been written by appellant himself. 9. Respondent has categorically expressed her desire to live in the company of appellant and she has offered to accept the appellant as he was along with his bad habits including habit of consuming of excessive liquor and the said part of statement has not been refuted by appellant. 10. It has also come on record that in the year 2000 respondent was constrained to file petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed, indicating that Court had considered that she had not left her matrimonial house without any cause as it is a pre-condition for granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It also appears from the material on record that respondent had filed application for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as she was unable to maintain herself and her minor children meaning thereby that children have also been brought up by respondent. 11. In support of petition, appellant has examined himself as PW1 and no other document or witness has been produced in support of his petition. 11. In support of petition, appellant has examined himself as PW1 and no other document or witness has been produced in support of his petition. Respondent has appeared in witness box herself as RW1 and examined three more witnesses namely RW2 R.N. Chakarvarti (brother of respondent), RW3 Yash Pal Singh Copyist, and RW4 Rajesh Thakur. 12. RW2 R.N. Chakarvarti has corroborated the version of respondent. RW3 Yash Pal Singh Copyist of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amb has proved compromise Ext.PW3/A from the record of Court. RW4 Rajesh Thakur has also corroborated the fact of compromise between the parties which was reduced into writing as Ext.PW3/A. He has deposed that it was written by appellant Rajesh Kumar himself. Perusal of compromise also depicts that scribe of compromise was appellant himself and he has signed it as scribe as well as executant in presence of witnesses. 13. Respondent is ready to live with appellant but appellant is not ready to do so and it is not a case where both sides have arrived at consensus to part with relations of husband and wife rather wife is ready to cohabit and, therefore, it cannot be said that matrimonial ties have become irretrievable. Otherwise also, when charges of cruelty and desertion levelled against the respondent have not been proved, rather cruelty on the part of appellant has come in the light in evidence led by respondent, the plea taken on behalf of appellant that matrimonial ties should be dissolved for irretrievable breakdown between the parties is not sustainable. Therefore, the case law cited by appellant is of no help to the appellant. 14. In view of above discussion, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment and therefore, there is no ground for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit including all pending miscellaneous applications, if any.