JUDGMENT : K.S. MUDAGAL, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree in M.C.No.499/2011 and M.C.No.197/2012 passed by the Judge, Additional Family Court, Mysuru. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court has dismissed M.C.No.197/2012 filed by the appellant/husband for decree of dissolution of marriage and allowed M.C.No.499/2011 filed by respondent/wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘the Act’ for short) for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The appellant was the respondent in M.C.No.499/2011 and petitioner in M.C.No.197/2012. Respondent was the petitioner in M.C.No.499/2011 and respondent in M.C.No.197/2012. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth as husband and wife i.e., their status in their matrimonial life. 3. The parties are Hindus and governed by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 25.9.2006 at Chanakya Kalyana Mantapa, JP Nagar, Mysuru. The couple were blessed with a daughter on 31.10.2007. Before marriage and even during the pendency of the proceedings, the husband was serving as constable in CISF. At the time of marriage he was working in Agartala. Thereafter he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. 4. Husband filed OP ( HMA ) No.587/2011 for divorce against the wife before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram alleging that wife has subjected him to cruelty and has willfully deserted him. On transfer petition filed by the wife before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said case was transferred to Family Court, Mysore and renumbered as M.C.No.197/2012. In the meanwhile, wife filed M.C.No.499/2011 against the husband for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that he has willfully deserted her. She also contended in the petition that husband and his family members have subjected her to cruelty. 5. On transfer, Family Court consolidated both the petitions and recorded common evidence in M.C.No.499/2011. Wife was examined as PW.1 and on her behalf Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. Husband was examined as RW.1. On his behalf, Exs.R.1 to R17 were marked. 6. The Trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment, allowed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights and dismissed husband’s petition for divorce holding that he has failed to prove the alleged cruelty whereas wife has proved her allegation that he has willfully deserted her. 7. Husband has questioned the decree in M.C.No.197/2012 in MFA No.5400/2015 and decree in M.C.No.499/2011 in MFA No.4438/2015. 7. Husband has questioned the decree in M.C.No.197/2012 in MFA No.5400/2015 and decree in M.C.No.499/2011 in MFA No.4438/2015. Though the appeals were filed in 2015, the records show that the appellant had not cleared the office objections raised by the Scrutiny branch up to 15.12.2020. The coordinate bench of this Court on 15.12.2020 though condoned the delay in filing the appeals, disposed of the appeals reserving liberty to the husband to file petition under section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act and if he is unsuccessful in the said petition, liberty was reserved to revive these appeals. Para 5 of the said judgment which is relevant for the purpose of this case reads as follows: “5. Though these appeals were filed on 17.07.2015 and 12.06.2015, the office objections have not been removed till date. In the circumstances, we dispose of these appeals by reserving liberty to the appellant-husband to file a petition under Section 13(1A) & (ii) of the Act, seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights of the parties for a period of one year. In the event the appellant-husband is unsuccessful in the said petition, liberty is reserved to the appellant to revive these appeals. Ordered accordingly.” 8. Pursuant to the said order, the husband filed M.C.No.378/2021 under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act before the Family Court, Mysore. Family Court by judgment dated 27.01.2023 dismissed M.C.No.378/2021. Thereafter on the application of husband by order dated 27.9.2024 these appeals were revived. Before this Court, during the course of hearing, the appellant husband has filed IA No.1/2025 to produce the following documents in evidence: i) Copy of order passed in C C No.14/2012 dt. 27.11.2024. ii) Copy of complaint dated 23.12.2019 made by the wife to higher authorities against husband in Hindi and English translation of the same. iii) Bill paid for translation of Hindi letter. iv) Copy of appellant’s statement given during departmental preliminary enquiry. Submissions of Smt Sarojini Muthanna, learned Counsel for appellant/husband: 9...... (a) The evidence on record clearly shows that the wife herself was reluctant to join husband to lead the matrimonial life. She was insisting the husband to resign his job and join her father in Mysuru who was a contractor and work in the business of her father. Submissions of Smt Sarojini Muthanna, learned Counsel for appellant/husband: 9...... (a) The evidence on record clearly shows that the wife herself was reluctant to join husband to lead the matrimonial life. She was insisting the husband to resign his job and join her father in Mysuru who was a contractor and work in the business of her father. The evidence on record further shows that even after marriage, she stayed back with her parents for 2 years and only on the intervention of the elders, she joined the husband in Agartala. She was refusing to do household work and discharge conjugal duties. She used to quarrel in the presence of neighbors and she made false complaints to his higher officers making false allegation that he had an affair with his sister-in-law. On enquiry, the said complaint was closed finding that the complaint is false. She used to cry all the time asking the husband to take her to her parents’ place and she told her husband that she married him due to the pressure of her parents. Despite the husband setting up a rented house in Thiruvananthapuram on his transfer to Thiruvananthapuram, initially she refused to join, later she joined and harassed the husband denying to discharge her marital obligations. She used to threaten the husband of committing suicide and killing the child. The husband was forced to drop her back at her parental house in March 2010 under the fear that she may commit some untoward act of killing herself or the child. (b) The Trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence has allowed the petition of the wife and dismissed the petition of husband in M.C.No.197/2012. On the complaint filed by the wife against the appellant-husband, his elder brother, sister-in-law and father alleging dowry harassment, case was registered. In that, the proceedings against elder brother and sister-in-law were quashed and case against father was abated. On trial the appellant was acquitted. The wife kept on making complaints to the higher authorities of the appellant in which his explanation was sought. They are the subsequent events. Therefore, those documents are produced. Those documents are relevant for the adjudication of this matter. Hence, IA No.1/2025 shall be allowed. 10. On trial the appellant was acquitted. The wife kept on making complaints to the higher authorities of the appellant in which his explanation was sought. They are the subsequent events. Therefore, those documents are produced. Those documents are relevant for the adjudication of this matter. Hence, IA No.1/2025 shall be allowed. 10. In support of her submissions, she relies on the following judgments: i) Martin Sujay vs. Smt. Amulyabrinda, ILR 2021 KAR 4324 ii) Joydeep Majumdar vs. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, AIR 2021 SC 1165 iii) Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 786 Submissions of Smt. Sona Vakkund, learned counsel for the respondent: 11. Admissions of the appellant-husband in his cross examination themselves show that he himself was guilty of willful desertion. Absolutely there was no evidence to show that the wife in any manner subjected him to cruelty. Except for self serving evidence of the husband, there was not even scant evidence to establish the alleged cruelty. When wife and her parents approached the parents of the appellant, they themselves created ruckus and to create evidence the appellant filed complaint before Saraswathipuram Police on which no action was taken. The Trial Court on judicious appreciation of the evidence has rightly dismissed the husband’s petition for divorce and allowed the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The acquittal was granted by extending the benefit of doubt and not an honourable acquittal, that does not amount to cruelty. Since the husband did not take care of his wife and daughter, she was forced to request the higher authorities of the husband, to counsel him to discharge his conjugal duties and that cannot be called as cruelty. Husband has not cared for his wife and daughter and is not even paying maintenance to them. Delay in production of the documents is not explained. Hence, both the appeals and IA are liable to be dismissed. 12. On hearing the submissions of both counsel and on examination of the material on record, the points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant has failed to prove that he was subjected to cruelty by respondent-wife ? ii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant-husband is guilty of willful desertion ? iii) Whether IA No.1/2025 for adducing additional evidence deserves to be allowed ? ANALYSIS Reg. Point Nos.1 to 3: 13. ii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant-husband is guilty of willful desertion ? iii) Whether IA No.1/2025 for adducing additional evidence deserves to be allowed ? ANALYSIS Reg. Point Nos.1 to 3: 13. As point Nos.1 to 3 overlap each other, they are taken up together for consideration. As already noted wife filed MC No.499/2011 for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that the husband has willfully deserted her. Though the petition of the husband for divorce is simply under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, without stating the specific provision i.e., Section 13(ia) and (ib) etc., he has alleged in the petition that wife did not join him in the matrimonial home at Agartala soon after the marriage in the guise of her B.com studies. Thereafter she did not join him in the pretext of her pregnancy and delivery. She insisted that he should resign his job and reside with her parents. That clearly shows that he sought divorce on the ground of desertion also. Further in para 25 of the petition in M.C.No.197/2012, he has clearly pleaded that the wife is guilty of cruelty and desertion. 14. Admittedly, marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 25.09.2006 at Mysore and the parties are Hindus governed by Hindu Marriage Act. It is also not disputed that even before the marriage appellant was serving in CISF and at the time of marriage he was posted in Agartala. It is not disputed that the couple was blessed with a daughter on 31.10.2007. 15. Wife filed M.C.No.499/2011 before the Trial Court for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that her husband has deserted her without any reasonable cause. Admittedly before she filing MC No.499/2011, husband filed OP HMA No.587/2011 on 18.04.2011 before Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the wife seeking decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground that the wife subjected him to cruelty and desertion. Wife filed transfer petition No.1187/2011 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking transfer of OP HMA No.587/2011 to Family Court, Mysore. Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 09.04.2012 allowed the petition and transferred divorce petition to Family Court, Mysore with direction to dispose of the matter within nine months from the date of framing of the issues. On such transfer the said case was renumbered as MC No.197/2012. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 09.04.2012 allowed the petition and transferred divorce petition to Family Court, Mysore with direction to dispose of the matter within nine months from the date of framing of the issues. On such transfer the said case was renumbered as MC No.197/2012. 16. Wife denied the husband’s allegation of cruelty whereas husband contended that wife herself did not lead the conjugal life and despite his request, stayed back with her parents in the guise of completion of her degree education, pregnancy, delivery etc. He further contended that in addition to that she subjected him and his family members to cruelty by filing false dowry harassment case and threatening him of suicide on killing the child. Therefore, it was not possible for him to continue the marital life. Under the circumstances, if the husband’s allegation of cruelty is held proved the wife’s allegation of willful desertion does not sustain. Therefore, this Court has to examine whether the allegations of cruelty were proved. 17. The cruelty alleged by the husband were as follows; i) She used to make false complaints to his higher Officers with false allegations; ii) As a counter blast to the divorce petition, the wife implicated him and his family members in a false dowry harassment case; iii) After service of notice of divorce petition, the wife, her father and other relatives went to his parents’ house on 25.08.2010 at 9.00 p.m., abused them in foul language and intimidated them forcing him to seek Police protection; iv) That wife was refusing to cook, do household work and perform conjugal duties; v) She was a nagging woman and used to quarrel loudly in the presence of neighbours; vi) She used to cry all the time in matrimonial home asking him to take her back to her parents’ house; vii) During her stay with him in Thiruvananthapuram she was threatening him that after killing the child, she will commit suicide. 18. The Trial Court has dismissed the petition for divorce and allowed the wife’s petition for restitution on the following grounds: i) The allegations of husband regarding desertion were not proved. Wife lead marital life with her husband in Agartala and Thiruvananthapuram and was all along ready to join her husband. ii) The allegations of cruelty are vague and were not proved. Wife lead marital life with her husband in Agartala and Thiruvananthapuram and was all along ready to join her husband. ii) The allegations of cruelty are vague and were not proved. Specific provision of Section 13 of the Act is not stated in the petition iii) The wife, her parents and relatives made galata against the parents and brother of the husband to insist them to take the wife back to the matrimonial home. That does not amount to cruelty. 19. So far as not quoting specific provision of Section 13 of the Act, it is settled position of law that quoting of a wrong provision in the pleadings or the application is not fatal and to ascertain the foundation for the reliefs sought, the Courts have to look into the substance of the pleadings or applications. The reading of the petition in MC No.197/2012 shows that the husband alleged that the wife was reluctant to join him to lead matrimonial life and unwilling for conjugal cohabitation. He also pleaded the acts of cruelty which are already referred above. Further in para 25 of the petition he has stated as follows: “So also the respondent’s intentional refusal to have normal sexual intercourse with him amounts to mental as well as social cruelty and much less the respondent is guilty of desertion and cruelty.” 20. In the light of such clear and unambiguous recital in the aforesaid paragraph coupled with the other statements made in the petition, the finding of the Trial Court in para 86 of the impugned judgment that the husband is not specific and certain on what ground he is seeking decree of divorce, is erroneous and unsustainable. 21. The husband alleged that wife was guilty of desertion and cruelty, whereas the wife alleged that husband was not ready to take her to his fold and he was guilty of desertion and cruelty. Desertion connotes willful withdrawal of a spouse from the company of other spouse without reasonable cause or against the wish of such party and includes willful neglect on the part of such spouse. In this case, the husband apart from alleging desertion contended that wife subjected him to cruelty which has created a reasonable apprehension to him that continuing to stay with her is not safe. In this case, the husband apart from alleging desertion contended that wife subjected him to cruelty which has created a reasonable apprehension to him that continuing to stay with her is not safe. Cruelty, if established would be a reasonable cause for a spouse to withdraw from the company of the other spouse. Therefore, it would be appropriate to first consider the allegation of the husband regarding cruelty. 22. The husband contended that wife finding his income not befitting her father’s financial status, wanted him to give up his job and join her father’s business, therefore, she was reluctant to join him. He further alleged that whenever she joined him in Agartala and Kerala she was nagging and threatened him of killing the child and committing suicide and implicating him in false case. He also alleged that wife implicated him and his family members in false criminal case and filed false complaints against him to higher officers making him to face hard time at his place of work. 23. Before this Court, he filed IA No.1/2025 to produce the copy of the judgment dated 27.11.2024 in C.C.No.14/2012 passed by the V Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore and copy of the complaint dated 23.12.2019 addressed by the wife to Inspector General of CISF, New Delhi and the copy of the translation of the same, as additional evidence. In the counter filed to the said application, the wife did not dispute those documents. But it is only contended that those documents were neither produced in M.C.No.378/2021 nor such contention was taken in the said petition, therefore, the production cannot be allowed at this stage. 24. Admittedly, MC No.378/2021 was disposed of on 27.01.2023. The judgment of acquittal in CC No.14/2012 was passed on 27.11.2024. Thus the said document was not available during the pendency of MC No.378/2021. Admittedly the scope of MC No.378/2021 was very limited as this Court by order dated 15.12.2020 had granted liberty to the husband to file petition under Section 13(1A) (ii) of the Act i.e., decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground that there was no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties even after period of one year or more after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Therefore, there was no scope for the husband again to allege cruelty by the wife by filing false complaints to his higher officers or for production of the said documents. Moreover in para 9 of her counter to IA No.1/2025 the wife admits that she had filed complaint, but not with a malafide intention, but to bring pressure on her husband to take her and their daughter to his fold. In para 11 of the counter she admits that she has not challenged the said judgment of acquittal. Admittedly the State also has not filed appeal against the said judgment. Therefore, the said judgment has attained finality. 25. In para 12 of her counter to IA No.1/2025 wife admitted having written the complaint dated 23.12.2019 addressed to the higher officers of the husband, but contends that such complaint was drafted by her local counsel with an intention to send her back to the matrimonial home. Thus she admits both the documents. The facts admitted need not be proved. The judgment between the parties to the lis is relevant, admissible and the Court can take judicial notice of the same. (Section 33/57, 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/Section 27/52 and 53 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyama, 2023). The documents sought to be produced have some bearing on the issue. Therefore IA No.1/2025 deserves to be allowed. 26. Admittedly husband got issued Ex.R2/notice dated 15.03.2011 prior to the institution of the divorce petition making allegations of cruelty and calling upon her to agree for divorce. The service of the said notice is not disputed. She did not issue any reply to the said notice. Admittedly from the date of marriage i.e., 25.09.2006 till the service of notice of divorce petition filed by the husband, the wife had not made any allegation of dowry harassment. OP( HMA ) No.587/2011 was filed on 18.04.2011 (renumbered as MC No.197/2012). As per the records, notice of the said petition was served on her on 06.05.2011. Soon thereafter on 04.06.2011 she filed dowry harassment complaint against her husband, his father, elder brother and the wife of the said elder brother. She had alleged that at the instigation of her husband’s brother and sister-in- law, he harassed her and suspected her character etc. She had also alleged that her brother in law and his wife also harassed her demanding dowry etc. She had alleged that at the instigation of her husband’s brother and sister-in- law, he harassed her and suspected her character etc. She had also alleged that her brother in law and his wife also harassed her demanding dowry etc. The said case was registered in Crime No.72/2011 of Mahila Police Station, Mysore and the said Police filed charge sheet against all of them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The V Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysore took cognizance of the offences against all of them and registered the same in CC No.14/2012. 27. Elder brother and sister in law of the husband filed Crl.P.No.6493/2016 before this Court seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No.14/2012 against them alleging that said proceedings are the abuse of the process of the Court. Wife was respondent No.2 in the said petition. Admittedly this Court on hearing both the parties by judgment dated 25.09.2019 allowed the said petition and quashed those proceedings against the said petitioners. In the current appeals while seeking revival of the proceedings, the counsel for the husband has produced the copy of judgment in M.C.No.378/2021 which shows that in the said case, the copy of the judgment in Crl.P.No.6493/2016 was marked at Ex.P14. The said judgment in Crl.P.No.6493/2016 is placed by the office in the records of this case. In that judgment, learned Single Judge observed that elder brother and sister in law of the husband had not resided with the complainant, the complaint against them was baseless and malicious. 28. Reading of para 6 of the judgment in CC No.14/2012 shows that initially all the accused were summoned and they were released on bail. Accused No.4/the father-in-law while filing the charge sheet was aged 68 years. He died pending those proceedings, therefore the case against him was abated. As proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3 were quashed, the trial proceeded only against the husband. Though the Magistrate made a stray statement in para 35 of the judgment that benefit of doubt goes to the accused, thorough reading of the said judgment shows that the learned Magistrate on detailed appreciation of the evidence, disbelieving the allegations of cruelty, demand and acceptance of dowry, granted honourable acquittal to the husband. Admittedly, the said judgment has attained finality. 29. Admittedly, the said judgment has attained finality. 29. Wife’s own statement in her counter to IA No.1/2025 makes it clear that to pressurize the husband she filed such complaint, not only against her husband but against other family members. Apparently that is to thwart the proceedings in divorce petition. Unfortunately the husband, who was in central armed police service at far off place, was made to face trial for 12 years in Mysore Court. Certainly facing such criminal trial and civil cases, while struggling in his career creates untold misery to a person. It is also material to note that even before the wife filing such complaint of dowry harassment, the husband filed complaint/Ex.R7 to the Commissioner of Police, Ex.R9 to Mahila Police, Mysore and Ex.R12 Saraswathipuram police alleging that on 25.08.2010 at 9.00 p.m. his wife, her father and her relatives went to his parents’ house, abused them in foul language in the background of matrimonial discord and criminally intimidated them. The wife admits the said incident. Though no FIR was registered on that basis, she contends such incident took place to insist the husband’s family members for accepting her in the matrimonial home. Thereby the said incident is admitted. 30. Learned counsel for the wife relied on the judgment in Mangayakarasi’s case referred to supra to contend that the acquittal in criminal case is not a ground to grant divorce. Reading of para 13 of the said judgment shows that in that case Hon’ble Supreme Court found error in framing substantial question of law with regard to the acquittal in criminal case. However, in para 14 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “14. It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made and the husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such circumstance if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground. However, in the present facts as already indicated, the situation is not so. Though a criminal complaint had been lodged by the wife and husband has been acquitted in the said proceedings the basis on which the husband had approached the Trial Court is not of alleging mental cruelty in that regard but with regard to her intemperate behaviour regarding which both the courts below on appreciation of the evidence had arrived at the conclusion that the same was not proved. In that background, if the judgment of the High Court is taken into consideration, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in its conclusion.” (Emphasis supplied) 31. This being the first appeal is continuation of original proceedings, in the evidence led by the husband before the Court, he had made allegations of malicious implication in the criminal case amounting to cruelty. The acquittal judgment is passed pending these appeals. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case the judgment in Mangayakarasi’s case does not advance the case of the wife whereas the same advances the case of the husband to grant decree of divorce. Further, even before the trial Court the husband alleged that the wife was making false complaints against him to his higher officers which amounted to cruelty to him. The wife admits for having filed complaint before the higher officers. One of such complaints dated 23.12.2019 is produced with IA No.1/2025. She has admitted the said document. In that she has alleged that her husband has extra- marital affair with his sister in law, therefore he wants divorce. Such allegations are made even after this Court in its judgment dated 25.09.2019 in Crl.P.No.6493/2016 held that she has made malicious allegations against her brother in law and his wife. In para 12 of counter to IA No.1/2025 she tried to overcome the consequence of the said complaint alleging that the same was drafted by her counsel with an intention to send her back to her matrimonial home. There is nothing in the said complaint to show that an advocate has drafted the same. Even otherwise, admittedly, she is a graduate and she has subscribed her signature on the said complaint. Thus she cannot disown her responsibility by blaming a counsel, that too behind his back. 32. There is nothing in the said complaint to show that an advocate has drafted the same. Even otherwise, admittedly, she is a graduate and she has subscribed her signature on the said complaint. Thus she cannot disown her responsibility by blaming a counsel, that too behind his back. 32. In similar circumstances, in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment in Joydeep Majumdar’s case referred to supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: 13. Proceeding with the above understanding, the question which requires to be answered here is whether the conduct of the respondent would fall within the realm of mental cruelty. Here the allegations are levelled by a highly educated spouse and they do have the propensity to irreparably damage the character and reputation of the appellant. When the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would be difficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected party. 14. The explanation of the wife that she made those complaints in order to protect the matrimonial ties would not in our view, justify the persistent effort made by her to undermine the dignity and reputation of the appellant. In circumstances like this, the wronged party cannot be expected to continue with the matrimonial relationship and there is enough justification for him to seek separation.” (Emphasis supplied) The analysis of the aforesaid evidence with reference to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court go to show that by falsely implicating the husband and his family members alleging dowry harassment and making complaints to the higher officers of the husband assassinating his character and his sister-in- law’s, putting his career to risk, wife has subjected him to cruelty. In such situation any person of ordinary prudence gets an apprehension whether it would be safe to live with such person as there is again chance of dragging him and his family members in some cases. 33. So far as the allegations of husband subjecting her to abuse etc or the wife quarrelling in the house in the presence of neighbours etc, both parties except their self serving evidence did not examine any other witnesses. Though the wife claimed that husband was not treating her properly during her stay in Agartala and Thiruvananthapuram, she herself admitted the photographs in Ex.R1 which show that he had taken her and the child for outing. Though the wife claimed that husband was not treating her properly during her stay in Agartala and Thiruvananthapuram, she herself admitted the photographs in Ex.R1 which show that he had taken her and the child for outing. But her grievance is that he was taking her only to the temples. The photos in Ex.R1 show that wife and child were taken to zoo, sea sh0ore, water palace etc. The husband contended that she was not willing to go to Thiruvananthapuram and on insistence, her parents brought and dropped her in Thiruvananthapuram. She has admitted the fact of her parents dropping her in Thiruvananthapuram. She did not file any petition for execution of decree for restitution of conjugal rights. 34. Under the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that there was willful desertion on the part of the husband without any reasonable cause and cruelty was not established. In the light of the above said facts and circumstances, IA No.1/2025 and appeals deserve to be allowed. Hence the following: ORDER : i) IA No.1/2025, MFA No.5400/2015 and MFA No.4438/2015 are hereby allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and decree in MC No.499/2011 and 197/2012 are hereby set aside. iii) The petition in MC No.499/2011 for restitution of conjugal rights is hereby dismissed. iv) The petition in MC No.197/2012 for dissolution of marriage is hereby allowed. v) The marriage of the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 25.09.2006 at Chanakya Kalyan Mantapa at Mysore is hereby dissolved. vi) Costs made easy. Draw decree accordingly.