JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2019 passed by the Family Court No. 2, Bikaner whereby the application Filed by the respondent/husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act') for dissolution of the marriage has been allowed and the marriage solemnized between the parties on 6.3.2011 has been ordered to be dissolved under the provisions of Section 13(1) (i-b) of the Act. 2. The application was filed by the respondent/husband, inter-alia, with the submissions that the parties had entered into wedlock on 6.3.2011. Immediately after the marriage, the appellant started living unhappy and indicated that she was not happy with the marriage and only on account of pressure from her parents, she had entered into the wedlock and would separate after sometime. It was claimed that the efforts were made to make the wife understand, however, she didn't reconcile and would go to her parental home and would not return for many days. It was alleged that on 26.9.2011 the wife left the matrimonial home alongwith jewellery in four bags. It was alleged that the wife remained in the matrimonial home for 60-65 days in acrimony and since 26.9.2011 she was living separately at her parental home and she has deserted the applicant without any reasonable cause, which has resulted in cruelty to him. It was alleged that the wife was made to understand to cohabit with the husband, however she flatly refused. 3. An application under Section 9 of the Act was filed on 17.4.2012, which remained pending before the competent Court. Whereafter a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act') was filed on 3.5.2012 and on 27.11.2012 a complaint on false pretext regarding dowry harassment was filed and the applicant was arrested and the matter was pending before the competent Court. Based on the above aspects, the allegation of cruelty and desertion were made. 4. After service, reply to the application was filed contesting the averments made in the application. It was indicated that on 28.9.2011, the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home and that the proceeding under Section 9 of the Act was initiated after the wife initiated actions. 4. After service, reply to the application was filed contesting the averments made in the application. It was indicated that on 28.9.2011, the wife was forced to leave the matrimonial home and that the proceeding under Section 9 of the Act was initiated after the wife initiated actions. Further submissions were made that in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, though the same remained pending for more than two years, the notices were not got served on her and the proceedings were thereafter withdrawn. It was repeatedly indicated that the wife wanted to live in the matrimonial home and that she is being deprived of the matrimony for no reason. Further submissions were made that Challan in the FIR lodged by her for demand of dowry has already been filed against the husband and that only on account of wrongful conduct of the husband, the wife was living separately and was ready to live with the husband. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. Based on averments of the parties three issues pertaining to cruelty, desertion and relief were framed. 6. On behalf of applicant/husband, he himself was examined as AW.1 and his mother as AW.2 and on behalf of wife, she herself was examined as NAW.1. No documentary evidence was produced by the applicant/husband. On behalf of wife, application under Section 9 of the Act and order sheet of withdrawal were produced as Exhibit-A/1 and Exhibit-A/2. 7. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that the allegations pertaining to cruelty were not proved. However, on the aspect of desertion, the learned Family Court came to the conclusion that it was undisputed that the parties were living separately since 26.9.2011/28.9.2011 and that the matrimony continued for less than seven months. It was found that admittedly the wife was living separately and though, the wife has indicated in her oral statements as well as in the written statement that she was ready and willing to live with the husband; in her evidence, she has not exhibited any document pertaining to the allegations of demand of dowry and domestic violence. It was found that admittedly the wife was living separately and though, the wife has indicated in her oral statements as well as in the written statement that she was ready and willing to live with the husband; in her evidence, she has not exhibited any document pertaining to the allegations of demand of dowry and domestic violence. Further, on her part no steps were taken for seeking restitution of conjugal rights and, therefore, it was proved that she was living separately voluntarily and the very fact that she initiated proceedings for maintenance, domestic violence and initiated criminal proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C., shows that she had no intention for restitution of the conjugal rights and consequently, on the aspect of desertion, held in favour of husband/applicant and granted decree for dissolution of the marriage. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that the finding recorded by the Family Court on the aspect of desertion is ex facie incorrect. Submissions were made that the Court below has essentially based its finding on the fact that the appellant didn't exhibit the proceedings initiated by her seeking maintenance, under the DV Act and criminal proceedings. It was submitted that the said aspect was very well established from the averments made in the application by the husband, written statement, wherein the number of the FIR were indicated and the proceedings alongwith dates before the competent Court were indicated. Further, in the cross-examination of the husband/respondent also the said aspect, when put, was not denied and therefore, the fact of filing of proceedings and their pendency was well proved and the appellant, therefore, had a reasonable cause in living separately from her husband and that it was the specific case of the appellant that she was ready and willing to live with the husband, however, the said aspect was wrongly brushed aside by the Family Court by indicating that the same was only for the sake of denial of husband's case and therefore, the finding recorded by the Court below on the said aspect deserves to be set aside. 9. Submissions have also been made that the Family Court, by simply recording the findings on the issues have ordered for dissolution of the marriage, without providing for permanent alimony and on that count also, the judgement impugned is bad. 9. Submissions have also been made that the Family Court, by simply recording the findings on the issues have ordered for dissolution of the marriage, without providing for permanent alimony and on that count also, the judgement impugned is bad. It was prayed that the decree passed by the Family Court be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the judgement impugned. It was submitted that from the material available on record it was well established that the appellant was living separately from the husband without any reasonable cause and, therefore, the Family Court was justified in concluding that she had deserted the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause, which finding does not call for any interference. Submissions were made that the matrimony between the parties continued for less than seven months and they're living separately now for eleven years and though the appellant had indicated that she wanted to come back to the matrimonial home, there was no substance in the same and, therefore, the judgement impugned does not call for any interference. Submissions were also made that when the appellant left the matrimonial home, the husband had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Act and on filing of the said proceedings, immediately the proceedings under the DV Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. were initiated, which were followed by filing a complaint under Section 498-A of I.P.C., which conclusively shows that the appellant had no intention to return back to the matrimonial home and therefore, the appeal deserves dismissal. 11. We have considered the submission made by the Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. The petition seeking dissolution of the marriage was found on the allegation of cruelty and desertion, to which response was filed denying the allegations on both the grounds. The Family Court framed issues pertaining to both the grounds and on the allegations of cruelty, came to the conclusion that the same was not established. 13. The issue pertaining to desertion was held against the appellant/wife. The Family Court framed issues pertaining to both the grounds and on the allegations of cruelty, came to the conclusion that the same was not established. 13. The issue pertaining to desertion was held against the appellant/wife. The principal ground, on which the Family Court held against the wife pertain to the fact that the matrimony was short lived i.e. for less than seven moths and that the wife initiated proceedings under various provisions against the husband and didn't initiate any proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, which reflect that she had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. 14. The facts and the allegations in the petition filed by the husband were too sketchy, wherein the allegation made was that the wife had left the matrimonial home on 26.9.2011 and that he had initiated process under Section 9 of the Act by filing application on 17.4.2012. Whereafter the proceedings were initiated under the DV Act on 3.5.2012 and a complaint was lodged with the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner on 27.11.2012 alleging dowry harassment leading to arrest of the husband his family members, which proceedings were pending. It was also indicated that he withdrew the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act on 21.10.2014 and the present proceeding for dissolution of the marriage was filed on 27.6.2015. 15. The wife in her written statement specifically made allegations regarding the ill-treatment being meted out to her during the period she remained in the matrimonial home, which ultimately resulted in her being thrown out of the house on 28.6.2011. The rest of the averments made in the application were denied and qua the proceedings initiated under Section 9 of the Act, it was indicated that the notices in the said proceedings were not allowed to be served on the wife and after bail was granted in the proceedings under Section 498-A of I.P.C., the same was withdrawn. It was also indicated that after investigation the police has filed Challan, wherein the proceedings were still pending. 16. In the evidence, which has led by the husband as also in the cross-examination, he admitted that the wife didn't initiate any proceedings seeking divorce and she had left the matrimonial home without any reason and though in the police station, she had accepted to return back to the matrimonial home, later on she changed her mind. 16. In the evidence, which has led by the husband as also in the cross-examination, he admitted that the wife didn't initiate any proceedings seeking divorce and she had left the matrimonial home without any reason and though in the police station, she had accepted to return back to the matrimonial home, later on she changed her mind. It was also indicated that even if all the cases filed are withdrawn, he was not willing to take the wife back with him. The husband specifically indicated the dates on which the proceedings were initiated against him under the DV Act, criminal case etc. and accepted the documents produced pertaining to application under Section 9 of the Act and its withdrawal. The mother of the husband (AW.2) denied that the daughter-in-law was ousted out from the matrimonial home. She indicated that the cases filed against her son were false. 17. The wife in her statement as NAW.1 reiterated her stand in the written statement and in the cross-examination, repeatedly indicated that she was prepared to go back to the matrimonial home. She denied that it was not possible for her to live with applicant Gautam and said that she was prepared to go with him at any cost. 18. From the material, which came on record by way of pleadings, ocular evidence and two documents produced by the wife, apparently the burden which lie on the applicant/husband regarding the wife having left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the husband, except for bald allegations and the fact that the parties were living separately since 26.9.2011/28.9.2011 was not proved. The fact that after the wife left the matrimonial home on 26.9.2011/28.9.2011, either on her own or she was turned out of the house by the husband and her in-laws, apparently till 17.4.2012 except for negotiations nothing happened and on 17.4.2012, the husband filed application under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights, however, the conduct in prosecuting the said application is writ large, inasmuch as it was the specific case of the wife in her reply that the notices in the proceedings were not deliberately served on her and the proceedings which remained pending for two and half years, were withdrawn on 21.10.2014. The order sheet dated 21.10.2014 (Exhibit-A/1) by which the proceedings filed under Section 9 of the Act were withdrawn, indicates that though the Presiding Officer had drawn the order sheet for issuing fresh notices to the respondent therein, i.e. the wife, by way of post script further order sheet has been drawn indicated that the husband after drawing the order sheet, himself appeared and indicated that he didn't want to press the proceedings and, therefore, the same was dismissed as not pressed. 19. The very fact that during pendency of the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, the appellant had initiated proceedings under the DV Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C. and criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of I.P.C., the fact of non-service of the notice, while other proceedings between the parties pertaining to matrimony were already pending, assumes significance, which proceedings essentially appears to have been filed to make out a case for branding the wife as a wrong doer. The finding by the Family Court that the proceedings initiated by respondent under various provisions were not exhibited, looses significance in view of the fact that the said aspect was indicated by the husband in his petition seeking dissolution of the marriage, in the written statement and in the cross-examination of both the parties, wherein the particulars of the cases and the dates on which the proceedings were initiated, were already indicated/admitted and, therefore, non-production of said documents, could not be made a basis for holding against the wife. 20. The further finding recorded by the Family Court that as the wife had initiated proceedings under various provisions against the husband, she had no intention to return to the matrimonial home and not even referring in the judgement impugned that the husband on the other hand had specifically refused to take the wife back in the matrimonial home, even if all the pending cases are withdrawn and explaining away the stand of the wife that she was ready to go back to the matrimonial home at any costs, by indicating the same as rhetorical, cannot be appreciated. 21. 21. The steps taken by a party to a matrimony under Section 125 Cr.P.C., DV Act and/or under Section 498-A of I.P.C. for protecting her rights/seeking maintenance cannot be held against her so as to reach a conclusion that she was living separately from her husband without any reasonable cause, so as to held her guilty of desertion. The very fact that a party to the matrimony, is required to launch proceedings under various Acts, which it is not the case of the husband, have been dismissed and/or decided against the wife, simply shows her distress and unless something more is placed on record, it cannot be said that mere filing of the cases would be sufficient to come to a conclusion that she was not willing to go back to the matrimonial home despite specific oral evidence on her part in this regard, which she reiterated in her cross-examination. 22. In view of above fact situation, the finding recorded by the Family Court on issue No. 2 pertaining to desertion, cannot be sustained, the same is therefore, reversed and the issue No. 2 is held against the husband/respondent. 23. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgement and decree dated 19.10.2019 passed by the Family Court No. 2, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Petition No. 305/2016 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the husband/ respondent seeking dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 of the Act is dismissed. No order as to costs.