Palo, J. -- 1. Appellant/husband has filed this appeal under section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.9.2010 passed by the District Judge, Shivpuri, in Case No.73/09 (HMA) by which the District Judge, Shivpuri, has refused to allow the application under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for decree of divorce against the respondent/wife.

2. It is not disputed that the appellant and respondents are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 2.6.2002 at village Padora, District Shivpuri.

3. The appellant/husband has filed an application for divorce against respondent/wife on the ground of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’. Applicant has alleged before the trial Court that after their marriage they lived peacefully for some time but after two years the respondent/wife changed her behavior. She was not cooperating in the domestic work, she used to leave the matrimonial home and used to visit her maternal home without informing the applicant. On her request, the applicant got her admission in the Shivpuri College. She refused to cohabit with the applicant. She has been leaving the house of Shivpuri to go to her parental home. On 22.2.2006, whe left her matrimonial home and took away the ornaments etc. The appellant/husband lodged a report at Police Chowki Physical, Shivpuri. The non-applicant has joined as Shikshya Karmi at village Chak Kotondha where her maternal home is situated.

4. Per contra, the non-applicant has denied all the allegations and submitted that she has been living with the applicant, performing the marital obligations. She never refused to cohabit. She herself wanted to be a mother of child. The non-applicant also submitted that she has been good in studies, therefore, she got the job of Shikshya Karmi Grade-III. Despite all these she wants to live with the applicant. She has never deserted him. The report lodged by the applicant is false and she did not took away the ornaments etc. with her, as has been alleged. She alleges that because of “acne” in her face and due to her colour the applicant dislikes her and is not prepared to keep her with him. He has always been cursing his parents for getting him married to the non-applicant.

5. The learned trial Court on the basis of the averments framed issues and adduced evidence. The learned trial Court held that the appellant/husband could not prove his case of cruelty, desertion and by the impugned judgment, disallowed the application under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

6. The appellant/husband assailed the judgment on several grounds and suggested that the respondent is serving in a school as Shikshya Karmi, Grade-III and do not want to live with the appellant. She has been playing double standards living separately intentionally and not wanted to perform her duties. It is contended that the learned trial Court did not consider the grounds of torturing the appellant therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Shivpuri, is liable to be set aside.

7. We have heard the counsel for the appellant at length and perused the record.

8. No doubt, the non-applicant/wife has expressed her willingness to live with the applicant, in the manner he wants her to live; but this submission seems to have been made to make the applicant’s case weak. The conduct of the non-applicant/wife does not match with this statement. She left the matrimonial home on 22.2.2006. A report Exhibit D-1 was lodged by the applicant/husband on 24.2.2006. Since 2006, she has not returned to the applicant/husband clearly indicates her intentions. It is not the case of the non-applicant that the applicant/husband thrown her out from the matrimonial home. At the other hand, the applicant/husband himself got her admitted into the college at Shivpuri. A relative Shrilal Jatav, AW-3 has made it clear that despite several efforts, the non-applicant wife did not come to her matrimonial home. He further ha