JUDGMENT A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 27.10.1994 passed in-First Appeal No. 40/94, whereby the learned Single Judge has affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court. 2. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent (plaintiff) was solemnised according to the rites of Sikh Region on 29.5.1986. After marriage, the couple resided for a month in village Ropadpanja and thereafter, since the husband was posted in a Colliery at Sidhi, they came to stay at Jayant Colony, Sidhi. They remained there for I'/S months and thereafter, the wife Balvindar Kaur left for her father's house for celebrating 'Karua Chouth' and since then, she did not return. During her stay with her parents, she gave a birth to one male child on 17.6.1987, who unfortunately died on 17.7.1987. The wife did not return to her husband's house for long time. The non-applicant sent his brother for fetching his wife but she did not come. Therefore, an application for restoration of conjugal rights was filed by the husband/non-applicant Karamjeet Singh. A decree of restitution of conjugal rights Was granted by the Trial Court on 4.5.1991. Thereafter, she did not come and stay with her husband and ultimately, the husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act oh 28.8.1992 and the Trial Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground that his wife has failed to restore conjugal rights despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, he granted a decree of divorce under Section 13(l)(A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the wife preferred an appeal before this Court and the learned Single Judge did not find any merit and the same was dismissed by order dated 27.10.1994. Hence, the present L.P.A. has been filed by the wife. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. 3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the wife preferred an appeal before this Court and the learned Single Judge did not find any merit and the same was dismissed by order dated 27.10.1994. Hence, the present L.P.A. has been filed by the wife. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. It is admitted that the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was granted on 4.5.1991 but the wife did not come back to reside with her husband, therefore, the respondent/husband had to file a petition for decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and in the proceedings, a plea was taken by the wife that she could not restore conjugal rights because a threat was held out to her from the husband side that in case, she came back, she will not be safe and for this purpose, she led the evidence of DW 2 Gurmer Singh, brother of the defendant/ appellant. However, the learned Trial Court did not believe the evidence and overruled this objection. 6. Mr. Samaiya, learned Counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the findings given by the Trial Court and has also referred to Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act which says that no party can take advantage of his/her own wrong; therefore, the learned Counsel submits that when the husband held a threat that in case she come back, she will not be safe, therefore the respondent can not take an advantage of his own wrong. We have considered this aspect of the matter and after perusing the findings given by the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court has found that the evidence led by the wife is not satisfactory and it does not justify that the husband tried to take any advantage of such situation. Since this is a question of fact and the finding has been given by the Trial Court against the appellant; therefore, there is no reason to take contrary view. 7. Now coming to the application for grant of permanent alimony, Mr. P.R. Bhave, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has already been given to the appellant-wife as a permanent settlement. The learned Counsel has placed a copy of receipt on record. 7. Now coming to the application for grant of permanent alimony, Mr. P.R. Bhave, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that a sum of Rs. 35,000/- has already been given to the appellant-wife as a permanent settlement. The learned Counsel has placed a copy of receipt on record. In this view of the matter, no separate order for grant of permanent alimony is required. 8. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.