The appellant-husband's plea for divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty was rejected. The court found that the appellant failed to prove desertion, and the respondent-wife's actions were justified given the circumstances. The wife had made multiple efforts for cohabitation, which were ignored by the husband.

1. Marriage and Initial Disputes:
   The appellant and respondent were married on 21.07.2007. Their daughter, Mansi, was born during their union. The appellant alleged that the respondent was uninterested in their marriage and frequently left their home. On multiple occasions, the respondent sought refuge at her parental house, eventually resulting in a petition for divorce filed by the appellant on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2. Allegations by Husband:
   The appellant claimed that the respondent behaved improperly, abandoned the matrimonial home several times, and attempted to jump off a motorcycle during an argument. He further contended that the respondent used abusive language against him and his mother and failed to return to cohabitation despite attempts at reconciliation.

3. Allegations by Wife:
   The respondent refuted the allegations, asserting that she faced cruelty from both the appellant and his mother. She claimed that the appellant doubted her character, beat her, and denied her cohabitation rights after her daughter’s birth. The respondent also stated that she sought reconciliation but was mistreated by the appellant.

4. Lower Court Proceedings:
   The trial court dismissed the husband's petition for divorce, holding that he failed to prove cruelty or desertion. The respondent’s attempts to cohabit, including sending a notice for restitution of conjugal rights, were ignored by the appellant. The first appellate court upheld this decision, finding no grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment.

5. High Court Ruling:
   The High Court dismissed the second appeal, stating that the appellant failed to establish the essential ingredients of desertion. The court emphasized that both the act of desertion and the intent to permanently leave the marriage must be proven. The respondent’s efforts for reconciliation demonstrated a lack of animus deserendi (intention to desert).

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:

   • Section 13(1)(i-b): Grounds for divorce on the basis of desertion for a continuous period of not less than two years prior to the filing of the petition.
   • Section 20: Pleadings in a matrimonial petition must contain material facts.

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

   • Section 58: Facts admitted in a proceeding need not be proved, but the court can require further proof.

3. Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act):

   • The respondent had filed a claim under the DV Act for maintenance, which was initially rejected but later allowed in appeal. The court clarified that this did not constitute proof of desertion.

Ratio:

The court held that desertion requires both the fact of separation and the intention to desert permanently (animus deserendi). The evidence showed that the respondent made genuine efforts for reconciliation, including sending a notice for restitution of conjugal rights, which the appellant ignored. Filing for maintenance under the DV Act was not considered an act of desertion. The appellant’s witnesses were not cross-examined, but this was insufficient to establish desertion or cruelty.

Subject:

Divorce, Desertion, Cruelty, Hindu Marriage Act, Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Domestic Violence Act, Matrimonial Disputes, Family Law, Second Appeal