The appellant is aggrieved by the decree of divorce granted by Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mandya on his file in MC No.26/2009, whereby her marriage with the respondent/husband is dissolved.

2. Briefly stated, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, ‘the Act’), for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. His case was, the parties were married on 22.02.2004 at Maddur, as per custom prevailing in their Vokkaliga Community. The marriage was consummated and a male child was born from the wedlock which died immediately after two days of birth. The husband is not a Graduate and wife is a Postgraduate. Taking this aspect of the matter, she used to taunt in all possible ways and used to scold him from the very beginning of the marriage and started quarreling with him. Despite advice and request, she did not correct herself. She did not care to discharge her duties as a dutiful wife. Thus, he was subjected to mental depression and his health deteriorated on account of cruelty meted out on him by the wife. She left the matrimonial house on 1.3.2006 and returned to her parental house. Advices and panchyats from the well-wishers to bring her back to the matrimonial house went in vain. From 1.3.2006, there is nobody to take care of him and cook for him.

3. The petition was contested by the wife. While denying the allegations leveled against her in the petition, she set-up the defence that there was no advice or co-operation from the husband, in spite of his mental harassment she was discharging her duties as dutiful wife. She left the matrimonial house for ceremonies at her parental house, but subsequently, no request or panchayats were made by the petitioner. Her parents made several attempts to send her to matrimonial home but all their attempts failed. Now also, she is ready to live with the husband by forgiving his torturous acts. He has deserted her for his own reasons.

After completion of pleadings, the parties entered into trial, examined themselves as PW1 and RW1 respectively, documents Exs.P1 to P11 and Ex.R1 to R29 were marked. On overall consideration of the material, the Trial Court allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage by Decree of Divorce.

4. Sri. K.J. Kamath, learned counsel for the appellant/wife submits that the finding of the trial Court is not a speaking order. The Trial Court failed to understand feelings of the woman who had lost her child. Her mental condition pursuant to the death of her newly born child was not understood by the Trial Judge. Entire approach of the Trial Court is erroneous in selecting only such of evidence convenient to the husband without evaluating the complete circumstances of the case. In fact, the husband made attempts to contract a 2nd marriage during the subsistence of his marriage with appellant. The wife always made efforts to preserve the marital relationship which was not considered by the Trial Court. Even now, she is ready to join the husband. The Judgment of the Court below is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

5. In reply, Sri. Sanjaya Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the marriage was incompatible owing to the fact that the wife is a Master Degree holder and she undermined the husband who was less-educated. Because of her torturous attitude, he suffered depression and Blood pressure which facts are proved by the documentary evidence as per Exs.P1 to P10. In her objection statement itself, she has stated that she was performing her marital duties till 3.1.2006 that by itself fortifies the case of the husband that she abandoned the matrimonial home on 1.3.2006 and never to return. Once she abandoned the matrimonial home, she never cared to join the husband. The petition is filed after three years of desertion. Hence, the husband is found entitled by the Trial Court for divorce on the ground of desertion. During her stay in the matrimonial home, she has caused sufficient mental c