Mat.App. 9/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A C UPADHYAY This matrimonial appeal is directed against the judgment and dec ree, dated 8.12.20006 passed by the learned District Judge, karimgang in Title S uit (Divorce) No.34/2005. The respondent/husband and the appellant/wife were married on 25 .07.1992. It appears that they lived together for a short period of about 4 mont hs. The allegation of the husband is that his wife left the matrimonial home and did not return back. Consequently, he filed a petition for divorce in 1995. Thi s was dismissed by the trial Court whereafter an appeal was filed before this Co urt. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal a compromise was arrived at bet ween the parties. In terms of the compromise the wife returned to the matrimonial home in the last quarter of 2001 and lived with the husband for a few months. De spite the compromise, this Court dismissed the appeal on merits. Thereafter, the wife is alleged to have again left the matrimoni al home without any cause. This led the husband to file yet another petition for divorce in the year 2005 and it is out of the decree dated 08.12.2006 that the present appeal has arisen. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Is there any cause of action? 2. Whether the petitioner has been deserted by the respondent? 3. Whether the respondent has been tortured by the petitioner? 4. To what relief, if any, is the parties entitled? In so far as the first issue is concerned, the learned trial Jud ge came to conclusion that the husband had a cause of action inasmuch as the wif e cut off relations with the husband some time in the month of December, 2002 an d left for her home town. In so far as the second issue is concerned, this was taken up al ong with the third issue. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion on the basis of the record that the parties did not have an unhappy matrimonial relatio nship. In fact, from the examination-in-chief of the wife as well as her cross-e xamination it appears that the parties were enjoying a comfortable relationship and according to the wife, she discharged her matrimonial obligations and satisf ied the entire family living with her husband. In her examination-in-chief she s ays that she never had any dispute or difference with her husband or any of his family members. With regard to the events after December, 2002 when the wife is alleged to have left the matrimonial home, in her examination-in-chief all that she stated was that she lived in the same town but there was no cohabitation bet ween her and her husband. There is no explanation given in the examination-in-ch ief as to why the wife left the matrimonial home in December, 2002. In her cross-examination also the wife reiterated that her relat ions with husband were good and it is not a fact that she did not look after her mother-in-law. She also stated in her cross-examination that her husband did no t demand any dowry nor did he commit any assault at any point of time. On a consideration of the evidence of the wife, we are completel y at a loss to understand why the wife left the matrimonial home some time in De cember, 2002. All that she says in her cross-examination is that she went to R K Nagar not to return back . On the basis of the evidence of the wife, it appears that the ma rriage has completely broken down. It also appears that the parties have not liv ed together for any length of time since their marriage in July, 1992. Almost 19 years have gone by since then and the parties do not have any children. It is noted by the learned trial Judge that both the parties wer e about 50 years of age some time in 2006. Today, the parties would be about 54- 55 years of age and restoration of their matrimonial life appears to be extremel y difficult. At this stage, we may note that on an earlier occasion also this Court had made an attempt to reconcile the parties by leaving aside whatever di fferences they had. The parties did live together for about a year till December , 2002 but not thereafter. The learned trial judge also tried reconciliation, bu t could not succeed. Under the circumstances, at this stage asking both the parties t o live together may not serve any useful purpose. There is absolutely no reason appearing on the record or otherwise from the entire evidence as to why the wife left the matrimonial home in December, 2002. In our opinion, the learned trial Judge rightly answered issue N os.2 and 3 holding that the wife had deserted her husband and that the husband h ad not tortured the wife or treated her with cruelty. The learned trial Judge af ter a detailed discussion came to the conclusion that the only solution for the happiness of the parties is their parting in a peaceful manner. On this basis, d ivorce was granted and we have no reason to take a different view from the learn ed trial Judge. The Matrimonial Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Send back the LCR immediately.