The liberalized provision of S. 13b of the Hindu Marriage Act allows divorce by mutual consent, considering the period of separation, willingness of the parties, and the welfare of the children as paramount.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is under S. 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, dated 24-10-1990 in M. C. No. 1019 of 1987 rejecting the appellant's petition filed u/s. 13 (1) (1-a) and (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 2 ) A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows: the appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband. They were married on 30-8-1974 at Bangalore as per Hindu customs. After the marriage, they lived together at Wardha in Maharashtra where the respondent was working as a Lecturer. Out of the said wedlock 2 sons were born. The first son, Bharath was born on 24-11-1976 and the second son, Prathivi, was born on 22-8-1978. In the year 1980 they shifted to Thirupathi as the respondent got a job as a Lecturer in the S. V. University College. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was a B. Sc. graduate. After the marriage the petitioner completed her degree course in Library Science in 1975-76 and got the degree B. Lib. Science. In the year 1981-82 she completed post-graduate course in Library Science and acquired M. Lib. Science degree. After completing her studies the appellant again joined the respondent at Thirupathi and lived there for some time. It is alleged that as the respondent stated ill-treating the petitioner; always criticizing her; referring to her parents and doubting the character of her sisters. He used to address her in filthy language and ill-treating her in the presence of relatives and her friends. Further, the respondent is excessively irritable and suspicious. Though the respondent is educated, he did not allow her to meet her friends. The suspicious nature of the respondent and the ill-treatment with cruelty forced the petitioner to leave the company of the respondent to join her parents with her children in the month of October 1983. Even after joining her parents, she was hopeful that the respondent would make honest efforts to take her and their children back. But, he refused to do so. Therefore, the respondent was also guilty of constructive desertion. Hence, she got issued a legal notice dated 27-1-1987 to the respondent. As there was no possibility of re-union, the petitioner filed the petition seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with the respondent.

( 3 ) THE respondent/husband filed his objections denying the allegations made by the appellant. He admitted the relationship and the fact of having 2 children by the marriage. But, he denied the allegation that he used to ill-treat her. He had not ill-treated her at any time. His case is that though he treated her with love and affection, the appellant herself developed an indifferent attitude towards him. The appellant alone is responsible for her withdrawal from his company. He has also stated that the appellant's intention to seek divorce is to join one of her sisters who is married to an Austrian and to stay in Austria. Further reason given by the respondent is that he cannot give up the Hindu way of life and adjust to the life of the appellant's sister and her parents. In his statement of objections, the respondent also denied the other averments made by the petitioner as incorrect.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the Court below raised the following points for consideration :"point No. 1 : whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? point No. 2 : whether the respondent is guilty of constructive desertion? point No. 3 : whether the petitioner is entitled to a Decree of Divorce? in support of their rival contentions, both parties led evidence, both oral and documentary. The trial Court upon appreciation of the entire evidence, found that the attitude of the respondent towards his wife/appellant was always affectionate. It was he who had encouraged the appellant to study Library Science and enabled her to take the M. Lib Science; and in none of his letters he expressed any ill-