ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal assails the order of Karnataka High Court passed in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.5109 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition for dissolution of marriage, filed by Appellant K.M.Santosh (“husband”) under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 1 [ ‘the Act’.] Earlier, the Respondent S.P.Rekha (“wife”) had preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal before the High Court against the order of Family Court dated 08.07.2016 whereby the decree for divorce was granted, allowing the divorce petition filed by the Appellant. 3 The facts leading to this appeal are summarized as follows: 3.1 The marriage between Appellant husband and Respondent wife was solemnized on 14.12.2008 at Tarikere as per Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, the parties started residing together at Doranalu in the house of Appellant along with his parents. However, they were having frequent differences and Respondent wife often went to her parental house. She was living in her parents’ house before the birth of male child named Parivathana on 16.09.2009. Although the elders tried to pacify the differences, the Appellant and Respondent could not agree to live jointly and continue the marital life. 3.2 Thus, both the parties decided to dissolve the marriage. A joint petition was filed before the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere (“Family Court”) as M.C.No.36/2010 on 16.12.2010 under section 13B of the Act, for divorce under mutual consent. The Respondent wife agreed to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- as permanent alimony. It is noted in the joint petition that Respondent wife has received Rs.2,50,000/- towards the permanent alimony at the time of presentation of the said petition and she has agreed to receive the balance amount at the time of presenting evidence before the court. However, the joint petition was dismissed on 07.01.2012 for default of non-prosecution because Respondent wife continuously remained absent before the Family Court. After the dismissal, Appellant requested Respondent for dissolution of marriage several times but she postponed it on one reason or other. 3.3 Therefore, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act on 25.07.2013 on the ground of desertion and cruelty. He stated that that the Respondent wife has deserted him since 16.09.2009 and has not joined the matrimonial home. 3.3 Therefore, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act on 25.07.2013 on the ground of desertion and cruelty. He stated that that the Respondent wife has deserted him since 16.09.2009 and has not joined the matrimonial home. It was also pleaded that the she treated him with mental and physical cruelty and is residing with her parents since June 2009 without any intimation to the Appellant. 3.4 The Respondent wife contested the petition stating that it was the Appellant and her in-laws who were ill-treating her. She claimed that her parents gave Rs. 3,00,000/- in dowry along with gold and cash. Further, the Appellant was addicted to several vices and used to come late. Even after the birth of their child, allegedly the Appellant and his family did not visit hospital. They also tried to perform marriage of appellant with another lady. Respondent stated that Appellant never paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to her on the date of presentation of petition. Her signatures were obtained hurriedly on the joint petition. She was ready and willing to discharge her marital obligation and thus she prayed for dismissal of divorce petition. 3.5 The Family Court by the order dated 08.07.2016 allowed the petition and granted decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. On the ground of desertion, the Family Court observed that Appellant and Respondent have been residing separately since 15.11.2010. This was admitted by the Respondent as well. The divorce petition was filed on 28.05.2013, which indicates that they have been living separately since more than two years. On the ground of cruelty, the Family Court observed that Respondent is giving false evidence of not receiving Rs.2,50,000/- despite signing the join petition for divorce, in order to mentally harass the Appellant. She has completed LLB and her evidence shows that she used to sign documents after knowing its contents. Thus, the Family Court concluded that Appellant has proved desertion and cruelty on the part of Respondent. The Family Court accordingly granted the decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act. 3.6 Respondent wife preferred First Appeal before the High Court against the order of Family Court. The High Court by the impugned order allowed the appeal, setting aside the divorce decree. The High Court observed that averments of mental cruelty are vague as no specific instance of cruelty was pleaded. 3.6 Respondent wife preferred First Appeal before the High Court against the order of Family Court. The High Court by the impugned order allowed the appeal, setting aside the divorce decree. The High Court observed that averments of mental cruelty are vague as no specific instance of cruelty was pleaded. Further, it stated that Appellant has failed to prove the intention on the part of Respondent to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. There is no animus deserendi on the part of Respondent. With this reasoning the High Court set aside the divorce decree and allowed the appeal of Respondent wife. 4. The Appellant therefore preferred SLP against the Impugned order. This Court issued notice on 22.09.2023. The order for substituted service was also issued. The service was completed through newspaper publication. However, no one has appeared for Respondent wife so far. 5. After perusing the material on record, this Court finds that the High Court erred in allowing the appeal of Respondent wife. The Family Court has rightly granted the divorce decree on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The reasoning of High Court on both the grounds is not tenable. It is admitted fact that the Respondent wife has been living separately since 15.11.2010. Considering the long period of separation, it cannot be argued that there was no intention of permanently ending the cohabitation. Respondent’s act of denying the receipt of Rs.2,50,000/- despite signing the joint petition, substantiates the claim of mental cruelty. The sequence of events discloses how the Respondent earlier agreed for divorce and later remained absent from legal proceedings. These acts of Respondent do not build trust about her intentions and bona fides. Further, she is conveniently absent from proceedings before this Court despite the service of notice multiple times. Considering the long period of separation, Respondent’s willful abandonment of legal proceedings, and errors in the reasoning of High Court, we are of the opinion that divorce must be granted. 6. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court.