N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. By presenting this present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellant wife has sought to challenge judgment and decree dated 06.08.2011 of learned Additional District Judge, Surat at Vyara in Regular Civil Appeal No.32 of 2008, whereby the First Appellate Court confirm the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dissolving the marriage in a petition filed by the respondent-husband. The decree of divorce was prayed for and came to be passed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

2. It was on the following substantial question of law formulated by the Court, that the present appeal was admitted:

“Whether the lower appellate court was justified in holding that decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 could be granted on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage?”

3. A profile of facts and events leading to the litigation between the spouses and culminating into the present appeal may be noted with relevance. In the Hindu Marriage Petition No.12 of 2004 filed by the respondent-husband before the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Bardoli under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter mentioned as ‘the Act’ for sake of brevity), divorce was pleaded under Section 13(1)(ia) on the ground that after solemnisation of marriage, wife had treated the petitioner with cruelty. The second ground was under Section 13(1)(ib) that petitioner was deserted for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding to the presentation of the petition.

3.1 It was the case of the husband that after his marriage was solemnized on 27.02.1994 at Vadodara in accordance with the Hindu rites and the community traditions, he was serving at Kakrapar Atomic Power Station and therefore was staying at village Unchamala, Taluka Vyara in the township called Anumala. The Unchamala was a small village. It was stated by the applicant-husband that some time after the marriage, the conduct and behaviour of the appellant was unbecoming of a Hindu wife, and that she used to indulge into petty quarrels and that their parents were prompting her that both should not stay in small village. It was the further case that in view of pregnancy, wife went to the parental house for delivery on or around 08.06.1995 as per the custom. Son Abhi was born on 03.12.1995, about which the husband stated that she was not informed about the birth of the son. He averred further that wife did not return to his house and he tried to bring her back by persuasion in vain. Efforts were also made through relatives, through Nari Sarankshan Gruh to call back the appellant but that too did not yield any result.

3.2 It was stated further that thereafter the wife initiated proceedings for maintenance. In the Court at Vadodara. It appears that in the said proceedings, upon intervention and persuasion of the well wishers of the parties, the wife came back to husband’s place in February, 1997 and restarted matrimonial life at Anumala township. It however did not last long. It appeared that a serious quarrel erupted on 25.10.1999; she demanded to go back to parents house with all clothes, articles and ornaments. The husband further stated that he, thereupon had to take the wife in the night at bus station as she wanted to catch the Vadodara-bound bus. At that time, minor son Abhi and father of the wife were with her. Wife’s father, as the facts goes, was called by the wife to husband's house and therefore he was there.

3.3 In the written statement at Exhibit 23, the appellant wife contended that she had never quarreled, nor had complained at any time about her husband living in a rural area or in a small village; on the contrary rural climate was of her liking. According to her, the husband’s attitude and conduct was non-caring. She contended that even after birth of the son Abhi, the husband did not attend them, nor he properly maintained. She stated that on 25.10.1999, she was ill