Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.: This is wifes appeal against the decree of judicial separation under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 3.7.1996 of Addl. District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharmshala passed in H.M.P No. 35-D/94 in favour of Anil Kumar Sood and against Smt. Madhu Sood appellant Anil Sood has also assailed the decree by way of cross objections. We hare taken and heard the appeal and cross-objections together as these arise out of common decree For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as husband and wife herein. . .

2. Briefly the facts are that Anil Kumar Sood got married with Smt. Madhu Sood on 10.5.1990 according to Hindu rites at Hitwas, Tebsil and District Kangra. They lived together and cohabited at Dohra for a short duration. A fern ale child was born to the parties in April, 1991 who is living under the care and custody of the wife. The husband filed petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on 12.1.1994 against his wife for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. It was averred in the petition that after the marriage wife stayed with the husband initially only about 22 days During this period despite all the love, care and affection, the wife did not take any interest in the household affairs. She kept herself aloof from the husband and other members of the family She would leave the matrimonial home without permission of the husband and without any reasonable cause. She also stated coaxing the husband to live separately from his parents who is the only male child of his parents. Ultimately, the husband setup independent business and home. The constant demand of the wife has been a cause of mental agony to the husband as she has been extending threats that she would commit suicide. The wife in the 2nd week of March, 1992 left the company of the husband without any sufficient and reasonable cause with the intention of not returning to he matrimonial homo. The husbands attempts to bring his wife to the matrimonial home failed including convening of brotherhood Panchayat Lastly, it was averred that the wife is living separately since 2nd week of March, 1992 and, thus, has failed to perform marital obligation towards the husband causing great averred that the wife was guilty of committing cruelty and the decree was sought on that ground.

3. The wife controverted die allegations of the husband in her written statement She alleged that she stayed with her husband and his family members. She also stated that she is still willing to live with her husband. She alleged that she had never compelled her husband to live separately or start separate business. She has further alleged that she was turned out many times by her husband from the matrimonial house and she had informed her parental family members about misbehaviour and bad treatment of her husband by writing letters to them. In the end, she stated that in fact it was the husband who had deserted her without any cause. In replication, husband reasserted and re-affirmed the averments made in the petition and the allegations of the wife in. her written statement were specifically denied.

4. On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 23.9.199.

1. Whether the respondent has, after soleminization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty ? OPP

2. Relief.

5. After perusing the evidence and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence on the file to prove the cruelty or desertion of the husband by the wife and held that at the most it is a case of non-co- operation and misunderstanding between the parties, however, the decree pf judicial separation under Section 13-A of the H.M. Act was granted.

6. The wife has challenged the said findings in this appeal. The husband has assailed the decree by filing cross-objections.

7. The learned counsel for the w