Courts must adopt a pragmatic approach in deciding matrimonial disputes.

G. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THESE appeals, by- the special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 9th March, 2004, of Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) by which the second appeals preferred by the Appellant herein were dismissed and the decree of divorce passed by the learned district Judge, Jalgaon, on 12th November, 2002, was affirmed.

( 3 ) THE marriage of the Appellant and the Respondent was performed on 1st March, 1994, and a son Charul @ Chaitanya was born out of the wedlock on 6th February, 1995. In the year 1999 the Respondent (husband) filed a petition for a decree of divorce against the Appellant (wife) under section 13 (l) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that the Appellant had treated him with cruelty and had also deserted him for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The petition was contested by the Appellant on various grounds. The Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) passed a decree for judicial separation on 10th December, 2001. The Appellant and respondent both preferred appeals against the said decree and the learned district Judge, Jalgaon, by the judgment and decree dated 12th November, 2002, dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant and allowed the appeal filed by the Respondent and dissolved the marriage of the parties by a decree of divorce. He further directed that the Respondent shall pay permanent alimony @ Rs. 700 per month to the Appellant and @ rs. 500 per month to the son Charul @ Chaitanya. The second appeals preferred by the Appellant against the decree passed by the learned District judge were dismissed by the High Court on 9th March, 2004.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court held that the Appellant behaved in a cruel manner and did not cohabit with the husband; that the husband failed to prove that the wife deserted him without any reasonable excuse and that the Appellant was ill-treated by the Respondent and his parents. On these findings the trial Court came to a conclusion that the Respondent was not entitled for a decree of divorce but had made out a case for judicial separation and a decree was, accordingly, passed. The learned District Judge, after a detailed discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty; that she had deserted the husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and that there was no legal impediment in granting the decree for divorce. On these findings decree of divorce was granted.

( 5 ) THE High Court in second appeal, after a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the material available on record, has recorded the following findings: after giving my thoughtful consideration the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties and also having gone through the evidence recorded at the trial and findings recorded by the Courts below and reasons assigned therefore, I am of the opinion that it was a case where the wife was guilty of deserting the husband without sufficient cause and the desertion was certainly with the intention to put an end to the matrimonial relations. The Trial Court as well as Appellate court have rightly found that the wife was guilty of conduct amounting to cruelty. Here as rightly submitted by Mr. Dixit learned Counsel for the Respondent, the act of cruelty was pertinent and grave on account of police complaints lodged against the Appellant and his father and that too during the period when the marriage of Respondents brother was settled. It was in that background that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and desertion on her part stood confirmed by the fact that she lived separately for over two years and did not make any efforts to come back to matrimonial home for cohabitation. The wife having failed to establish the alleged acts of c