Honble TIBREWAL, J. – This appeal u/s. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the Judgment & decree dated 15.9.1993 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Ajmer, whereby a decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed. The dissolution of marriage is founded on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period more than one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties. This ground for dissolution of marriage is available u/s. 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ``Act of 1955). (2). In short, the facts of the case are that the parties were married on 19.6.1988 at Ajmer. It appears that they lived as husband and wife for few days i.e. 20 or 25 days and, thereafter, the wife (appellant herein) started to live at Udaipur with her parents. She was employed there as Municipal Clerk. The husband (respondent herein), therefore, filed a petition u/S. 9 of the Act of 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and a decree was passed on 17.4.1990. Inspite of the decree when the wife did not discharge marital obligation and there was no resumption of marital rela- tion between the parties for a period more than one year, the husband filed the peti- tion for dissolution of marriage. It also appears that before filing the petition for disso- lution of marriage, the husband gave a letter to the wife on 16.3.1991 asking her to live with him and discharge marital obligation but, inspite of that she did not come. (3). Notice of the petition was given to the wife and on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the learned Judge, Family Court framed following issues on 7.1.1992 :– (i) Whether the non-petitioner (wife) has deserted the petitioner (husband) since 14.11.1988?; (ii) Whether there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties from 17.4.1990, since the date of the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights? (iii) Relief. (4). Both the parties led evidence. The learned Judge, Family Court, on the basis of evidence led before him decided Issues No. 1 & 2 in favour of the husband (respondent herein). (iii) Relief. (4). Both the parties led evidence. The learned Judge, Family Court, on the basis of evidence led before him decided Issues No. 1 & 2 in favour of the husband (respondent herein). Consequently, the decree of divorce was passed on 15.9.1993 which is under challenge in this appeal. (5). The learned counsel appearing for the appellant read over statements of the witnesses recorded before the Family Court. After going through the entire evi- dence, we are of the opinion that findings recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court on Issue No. 1 & 2, are just and proper requiring no interference by this Court. From the evidence it is clear that marriage between the parties had taken place on 19.6.1988 and they lived together for 20 or 25 days only after the marriage. Since then, the wife has been living at Udaipur with her parents and she did not come to live with her husband to discharge her marital obligation. It is also clear that decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed on 17.4.1990 and even thereafter the wife did not come to live with her husband. (6). Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, contended that the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was ex-parte. In our opinion, it doesnt make any difference. The appellant had a right to get the decree of restitution of conjugal rights set- aside if she was of the view that it was wrongly passed ex-parte. No such proceeding was taken by her to get ex-parte decree set- aside. An ex-parte decree is as good as like contested decree. In the facts and circumstances and the evidence recorded before the Family Court, we find that no error has been committed by the learned Judge Family Court in passing the decree of divorce. We have also been informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that after the decree of divorce the respondent (husband) has re-married and on this ground the stay was dismissed by this Court. (7). Learned counsel for the appellant, then, contended that no order had been passed for permanent alimony and maintenance of the wife while passing the decree of divorce. From the judgment under appeal it does not appear that any such request was made. (7). Learned counsel for the appellant, then, contended that no order had been passed for permanent alimony and maintenance of the wife while passing the decree of divorce. From the judgment under appeal it does not appear that any such request was made. The question of permanent alimony and maintenance depends on the income and other properties of the husband as well as the income and other properties of the wife and also the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case. It is a matter of enquiry as to whether the wife is entitled for permanent alimony and maintenance and if so, what should be the sum in terms of money. It also appears that no application was moved by the wife for maintena- nce u/s. 24 of the Act of 1955. Be that as it may, in absence of material before us, we are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant at this stage. In any case, the wife is always free to make an application u/s. 25 of the Act of 1955 for grant of alimony and maintenance in accordance with law. (8). With regard to the exclusive properties of the wife in the name of ``Stri- dhan she is always free to seek remedy in accordance with law. (9). Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.