The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to prove intention and absence of consent for desertion, and the burden of proof on the parties in cases of cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage Act.

S.S. Saron, J.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant Prem Pal against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhajjar whereby the petition filed by the appellant u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("Act"-for short) seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.6.1999 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The 'Gona' ceremony was held in 2005. The marriage was consummated but the parties have had no child from their marriage. The appellant stated that the behaviour of the respondent and her family members since the time of the marriage had been cruel and uncooperative towards him. However, the appellant hoped that with the passage of time, her behaviour would improve; rather it went from bad to worse. It is alleged that on 25.5.2006 the respondent consumed 'celphos' (aluminium phosphide) in the morning. She was taken to the doctor and her parents were also called. They came to the house of the appellant and it was decided that their life cannot be normal in the prevailing circumstances. Accordingly a writing dated 27.5.2006 was scribed in the presence of the parents of the respondent. The respondent in terms of the said writing admitted that she had been residing with her parents-in-law till 27.5.2006 (Mark P-2) and from the said date, she had started to reside separately. She has got her rights and articles from her in-laws. Besides, her parents-in-law are not at fault. From then, she would have no relations with her parents-in-law, brothers-in-law and their wives. She would be responsible for herself and her household. For any wrong act done by her, she would herself be responsible. Despite this it is alleged that the respondent was giving threatening calls to the appellant that she would come to the house of the appellant and commit suicide as she had done previously. The respondent and his family members also threatened that they would involve the appellant and his family members in a false criminal case. The said behaviour of the respondent caused mental cruelty to the appellant. The same was of such a nature that it became impossible for the appellant to lead his life with the respondent except at the cost of his health and life. The parents of the appellant convened Panchayats at Charkhi Dadri many a times and tried for reconciliation of the matter. They requested the respondent and her family members for the rehabilitation of the parties. However, the Panchayat members misbehaved with the appellant and he was turned out from the house by the respondent. The respondent stated that she had disassociated all relations of husband and wife between them. Since 27.5.2006, the respondent had been living with her parents at Charkhi Dadri and she had deserted the appellant without any sufficient cause and against the wishes of the appellant. This according to the appellant constituted a cause of action for filing the petition. The appellant had earlier also filed a petition for divorce on 27.10.2006, which was compromised in the Permanent Lok Adalat where the respondent stated that she had settled her dispute with the appellant. On the said ground, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.3.2009. However, the respondent did not join the company of the appellant. A Panchayat was convened by the appellant on 4.4.2010 which went to the house of respondent at Charkhi Dadri but her (respondent's) parents did not allow the Panchayat members to enter their house. Therefore, the petition for grant of divorce had been filed.

2. On notice, the respondent appeared and filed her written statement. The fact of marriage between the parties is admitted. It is submitted by the respondent that her father was an employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board. He died after about two years of the marriage between the parties. The brother of the respondent gave vari