Desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act requires both the factum of desertion and the intention to permanently end cohabitation. The court also considered the efforts made by the deserted spouse to reconcile.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the respondent-wife is directed against the order dated 10-2-1981 passed by the civil Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in H. M. C. No. 14 of 1978 on his file decreeing the petition of the husband for divorce from the respondent-wife, under Section 13 (i) (b) of the Hindu Marriage act.

( 2 ) THE husband-petitioner married the respondent in the petition on 23-5-1969 at Madiker. After the marriage, according to him, the wife resided with him a, Mathur till 31-12-1970. Thereafter she left the house of the petitioner from Mathur without his consent and against his wishes. She never cared to return thereafter. Qn 12-12-1972 when the petitioner-husband was not in the village, she came in a car and took away all her belongings. In spite of his efforts and persuasion, the respondent did riot come back to live with him as hi,; wife. Rcspendent instituted H. M. C. 3 of 1977 on the file of the Civil Judge, Kodagu, for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter he withdrew the said petition and find the present petition for divorce under the Amended Act.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT-WIFE resisted the petition while admitting the marriage with the petitioner and that she lived with him for about 1 1/2 years as his wife, she complained that during that period her husband ill-treated and neglected her. He insulted her and made her to stiffer. mental agony. Because of the cruel treatment meted out to her, she apprehended that it was dangerous for her to live with him and that her health would be in jeopardy. Accordingly, with a view to avoid further ill-treatment, the sister of the petitioner-husband Namely, Vimala Vijaya, took her to Bangalore and she lived with her during the year 1971. She denied that the petitioner-husband was not in the house when she came to take her articles. She further averred that the behaviour of the petitioner-husband forced her to leave the marital house and she denied that she had deserted her husband.

( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge made efforts to bring together husband and wife by reconciliation but according to him the parties took rigid attitude. Hence he proceeded to decide the matter on merits. The learned Civil Judge raised the following points as arising or his consideration from the pleadings :

"1. whether the petitioner proves that the respondent deserted him by leavings his house on 31-12-1970?. 2. Whether the respondent establishes that the petitioner treated her with crucially as to compel her to leave the petitioner's home? 3. Is the petitioner entitled to a decree of divorce? 4. To what reliefs are the parties entitled?"

During hearing, the petitioner examined himself and 2 other witnesses on his behalf. As against that the respondent-wife examined herself and 2 other witnesses on her behalf. Petitioner got marked Exhibits P1 to P7 and the respondent produced on documentary evidence. The trial Court appreciating the evidence on record held that the petitioner proved that respondent deserted him by leaving the marital home on 31-12-1970. It is further held that the respondent wife failed to establish that the petitioner-husband treated her cruelly so as to compel her to leave the home. In that view, the learned Civil Judge decreed the petition of the husband for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Aggrived by the said decree, the respondent-wife has instituted the above appeal.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant strenuously urged before us Chat the learned Civil judge was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the wife namely, the, present appellant deserted her husband without reasonable cause and against his wishes on 31-12-1970. He further argued that it was the husband who constructively deserted the wife in-asmuch as he treated her cruelly, neglected her and made her life intolerable. Hence he submitted that the learned Civil judge was not justified in coming to the contrary conclusion. He further submitted that the learned Civil Ju