As per case facts, the petitioner/husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion, alleging the respondent/wife pressured him to live separately and then left with her father. He claimed ... she refused to resume marital life even after a previous settlement. The respondent countered that her stay at her parental home was due to the significant commute to her teaching job, a fact known before marriage. She regularly sent money and expressed willingness to live with the petitioner, citing lack of cooperation from his family for her job and health issues after delivery. The lower court dismissed the suit, finding no cruelty or desertion. The question arose whether the respondent's conduct amounted to cruelty or desertion warranting dissolution of marriage. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the respondent's absence was a compulsion due to her distant workplace, not willful abandonment. The court noted her efforts to maintain the marriage, including financial support, and found no evidence of cruelty or desertion by the respondent.