The main legal point established is the grounds for dissolution of marriage under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, specifically the evidence and interpretation of desertion.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

ALOK ARADHE, J. - MFA No.2902/2016 has been filed against the order dated 16th of January 2016 filed by the Family Court by which the petition filed by the respondent under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, viz., M.C.No.388/2013 has been allowed.

2. MFA No.2901/2016 has been filed against the order dated 16th of January 2016 passed in M.C.No.1328/2012 by which the petition filed by the appellant under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, has been dismissed.

3. Since both the appeals arise out of common order passed by the Family Court, they were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Facts leading to the brief case stated are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30/5/2010 in Bangalore. After marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home. The appellant left the matrimonial home on 26/10/2010 and thereafter, gave birth to a daughter on 16/4/2011.

5. The appellant filed the petition on or about 11/4/2012 under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent filed the petition on or about 22/1/2013 under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

6. In the petition filed by the respondent inter alia it was pleaded that the appellant on her volition left the matrimonial home on 26/10/2010. Thereafter the parents of the respondent sent letters on 28/3/2011 and 4/5/2011 to parents of the appellant requesting them to advise the appellant to join the matrimonial home. However, despite the aforesaid communication, the respondent failed to join the matrimonial home.

7. It was pleaded that the appellant has deserted the respondent. In addition it was also pleaded that the appellant was very rude and adamant in nature and never cared and respected the respondent and her in laws. It was also pleaded that the appellant used to state that she has been married against her wishes and never adjusted with the family of the respondent. The appellant also threatened that she would commit suicide. It was therefore, pleaded that the appellant has treated the respondent with cruelty. Accordingly a decree was sought for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

8. The appellant filed a detailed statement of objection in which inter alia the marriage performed between the parties as well as birth to the daughter from the wedlock was admitted. It was further pleaded that since the appellant had become pregnant, the Doctor had advised the appellant to take bed rest and therefore, she left the matrimonial home and went to her parents place. It was further pleaded that though there were differences of opinion between the parties, the appellant made attempts to sought out the disputes amicably and is eager to lead the marital life with the respondent. It was denied that the appellant ever treated the respondent with cruelty or deserted the matrimonial home.

9. The Family Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed issues and recorded evidence. The appellant examined herself as PW.1 and exhibited one document viz., Ex.P1. The respondent examined himself and exhibited four documents viz., Exs.R.1 to R4. The Family Court by a common order dtd. 16/1/2016 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and has allowed the petition filed by the respondent under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of desertion. In the aforesaid factual background these appeals are heard.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court ought to have appreciated that the appellant was ready and willing to join the matrimonial home and had filed the petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Family Court. It is also for yet another reason no interference is called for with the impugn