JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal by wife Angoori Devi against whom a decree for judicial separation under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955, has been passed by the District Judge, Bharatpur, vide judgment dated May 22, 1975. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at village Samraya according to Hindu rites in July, 1962. After the marriage, the parties used together up to with, march 1963. It is stated that in March, 1963, the parties along with the parents of the respondent Went to Brahmabad fair and when they were returning from there, the appellant dropped at village Samraya against the wishes of her husband and the parents of her husband. According to the respondent, the appellant thereafter never returned to the house use of her husband inspite of several efforts made in that behalf by the husband to bring the appellant to her husband's house. The present petition was filed on December 5, 1970 mainly on the ground that the appellant has deserted the respondent without any reasonable cause for more than 2 years with the intention of deserting him permanently. The appellant Contested the petition. She admitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1962 at village Samraya. She denied that she alighted from the bus at village Sanuaya while returning from Brahmabad against the wishes of her husband and her husband's parents. According to her, the blame lay with her husband who deserted her without any reasonable and probable cause. It was alleged by the appellant that her husband never came to her parent' house to take her back with her to his house. It was also pleaded that the petition was liable to be dismissed as it was filed after considerable delay The learned District Jude, after consideration of the evader on led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the husband has succeeded in proving that his wife deserted him for a period of mare than 2 years without any reasonable cause and this desertion was with the intention of permanently keeping away from the company of the respondent. On the point of delay, the learned District Judge held that there was no culpable delay so as to debar the husband from filing the petition for judicial separation. On the point of delay, the learned District Judge held that there was no culpable delay so as to debar the husband from filing the petition for judicial separation. The learned District Judge also made an attempt for reconciliation, but the appellant, no doubt, showed her willingness to accompany her husband, but the respondent refused to accept her after the expiry of 11 years. The Husband also showed his difficulty in adjusting with the appellant when his prestige has been lowered down in the society by the conduct of the appellant in refusing to live with him inspite of best efforts made on his part. The learned District Judge in the result allowed the petition and passed a decree for judicial separation under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant Angoori Devi his now preferred this appeal before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 4. It is established from the evidence that the appellant, in March, 1963 when she was returning from the Brahmabad fair, alighted from the bus at Samraya and thereafter she never returned to her husband's house. It is also proved that the appellant alighted at village Samraya against the wishes of her husband and the parents of her husband. This fact is proved from the evidence of the husband Balkishan, his father Bipinlal and a fellow passenger Sham Lal P. W. 4. Then there is a cogent evidence produced on behalf of the respondent that several efforts were made to bring the appellant to her husband's house, but all those efforts failed, The petitioner along with his, father went to the house of the appellant in the month of June, 1963 to call the appellant but the later was not sent with her husband. The second effort was made in the year 1964 when Bishambhar Dayal wit sent to persuade the appellant to lire with her husband, but she was riot sent writ Bishambhar Dayal. It may be mentioned here that in the year 1964, Bipinlal had to be shifted to Bharatpur, as he stiffened a mild heart-attack. P. W. 2 Bishambhar Dayal has stated that he went to Samraya and persuaded Ramchand brother of Snit. Angoori Devi and Motilal, father of Smt. Angoori Devi, to send Smt. Angoori Devi her husband's house. It may be mentioned here that in the year 1964, Bipinlal had to be shifted to Bharatpur, as he stiffened a mild heart-attack. P. W. 2 Bishambhar Dayal has stated that he went to Samraya and persuaded Ramchand brother of Snit. Angoori Devi and Motilal, father of Smt. Angoori Devi, to send Smt. Angoori Devi her husband's house. but they gave no definite assurance to send Angoori Devi to to her husband's house. Another effort was made in June 1966 when the petitioner along with Om Prakash went to Samraya to fetch the appellant. but the latter did not turn tip and Angoori Devi's father Motilal totally refused to send his daughter with her husband. The last attempt was made in the year 1969 on the occasion of the marriage of the respondent's younger brother in the month of June, 1969, The fatter of the respondent along with P W. 6 Subhash Chandra went to Samraya and asked Motilal, the father of the appellant, to send Smt. Angoori Devi, but Motilal totally refused to send her to her husband's house. Not only that, it is said that Motilal misbehaved with Bipinlal. All these facts stand proved from tie statements of the petitioner Balkishan, his fatter Bipinlal P.W. 5, Bishamhbar Dayal P. W. 2, Om Prakash P. W 3 and Subhash Chandra P.W. 6. Against this evidence, the appellant has appeared in the witness box and denied that any effort was made on behalf of her husband to call her to her husband's house. In support of her version, she examined her father D.W. 2 Motilal. The learned District Judge, after thorough discussion of the entire evidence disbelieved the testimony of D.W. 1 Smt. Angoori Devi and D.W. 2 Motilal. The testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent appears to me to he highly plausible inasmuch as it is natural that an effort must have been made to call the appellant when father of the respondent suffered heart attack, when tie uncle of the respondent expired and when there was marriage of the Younger brother of the respondent. The appellant as well as her father Mitilal conveniently showed their ignorance about all these events. It may be mentioned here that the appellant and her father were residing at Samraya which is only 22 to 25 miles away from Bhusawar where the respondent and his parents reside. The appellant as well as her father Mitilal conveniently showed their ignorance about all these events. It may be mentioned here that the appellant and her father were residing at Samraya which is only 22 to 25 miles away from Bhusawar where the respondent and his parents reside. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the testimony of D.W. 1 Smt. Angoori Devi and D.W. 2 Motilal pas Fishily disbelieved and the learned District Judge came to a correct conclusion that, the respondent and his parents made several efforts to bring back the appellant, but she deliberately did not return back to her husband's house. 5. In view of the above facts, It can safely be presumed that the appellant deserted the respondent for more than 2 years without any reasonable cause and this desertion was with the intention of permanently keeping away the appellant from the company of the respondent. 6. The learned council for the appellant laid considerable stress that the petition for judicial separation was filed after the expiry of seven years from the date of desertion. It is true that the desertion took place in March 1963 and the petition was filed on December 5,1970. The Question however arises whether in the circumstances of the case, can this petition be thrown away on the ground of delay? The respondent has proved by reliable evidence that up to 1969 he had been making efforts to bring back his wife to his own house, but all his effort, failed. There is thus satisfactory explanation why the petition was filed after such a long delay. The delay becomes material only written it remains unexplained. In the present case, the delay has been fully explained. The learned District Judge, in the circumstances, was wholly justified in passing & decree for judicial separation. 7. The learned council for the respondent moved an application that on account of the amendment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a decree for divorce be passed inspite of judicial separation. I do not agree with him. It is open to him to file a petition for divorce on the basis of the decree for judicial separation. 8. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******