JUDGMENT M.V. Tamaskar, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.3.1993, passed by the District Judge, East-Nimar, Khandwa dismissing Civil Suit No. 9-A/1990 for divorce, under Section 13(1)(a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The parties, in this appeal, were married in accordance with Hindu caste-customary in April 1971; and have 3 issues son and two daughters. Sometime in the year 1985 the relations between the parties became strained and it is alleged that the wife started living with some other known as Deoram adultery. 3. Decree for divorce was sought on the ground of adultery. 4. The plea of the wife on the other hand was that she had never left the house of her husband; she was living in the same house where her husband living. But due to bad habits of drinking and other harassment, and beatings and frequent quarrel the respondent/defendant was forced to live separately though husband himself deserted the wife. 5. Issues were framed and the Court below found that the husband was not entitled for a decree for divorce; and that he has failed to prove allegation of adultery and the same being false and fabulous she was entitled to received damages Rs. 2,000/-. 6. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dismissing the suit. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding as regard adultery given by the Trial Court is perverse. There is enough evidence on record to show that the defendant was living adultery since 1985. It is also alleged that there is some transaction between wife and Deoram which is alleged to be living with her in the same house; and the third Deoram has transferred the house in the name of Ushabai. 7. Having examined the evidence on record there is no doubt that the plaintiff himself laid the evidence. All witnesses P.W. 1 to 5 who have come forward to state that they have never found any such relationship which may amount to Usha living with Deoram as husband and wife. In fact, on the other hand the evidence of P.W. 1 discloses that the husband himself left the house and started living in the separate house. Evidence of P.W. 2 Babulal is specific that he cannot state about the relationship of Deoram and Ushabai which was objectionable. In fact, on the other hand the evidence of P.W. 1 discloses that the husband himself left the house and started living in the separate house. Evidence of P.W. 2 Babulal is specific that he cannot state about the relationship of Deoram and Ushabai which was objectionable. Some is the evidence of P.W. 3 Chhaganlal Choudhary; in the evidence of P.W. 4 Suresh Chand definitely there is nothing which turned as objectionable in the conduct of Ushabai. With all these evidence on record it is difficult to believe the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 who have come forward to say something against Ushabai which only in the nature that Ushabai was seen going on the scooter with someone; and same statement has been attributed alleged to have been stated by Ushabai. There is no corroboration by other statement of witnesses. Moreover, statement of Ushabai defendant is very specific and clear that she is still prepared to live with her husband. She has denied any relationship with Deoram. She is still tenant of Deoram of Rs. 150/- per month. Same is the statement of D.W. 2 Yogesh the son of the appellant. They never denied his relationship. The finding recorded by the Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality. 8. The first ground therefore fails as regards adultery and conduct of wife. The alternative ground prayed that they should be granted judicial separation is also not tenable as there is no ground. 9. The appeal fails and is dismissed.