D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals do arise out a common order dated 16. 10. 1997 passed by the Judge, Family court at Visakhapatnam, in OP No. 85 of 1995 and OP No. 98 of 1997. Appellant in these two appeals is the wife. ( 2 ) ORIGINAL Petition No. 85 of 1995 was filed by one K. Yelleswara Rao Patrudu against the appellant herein/wife Smt. K. Sita Mahalakshmi and another under section 13 (l) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce. ( 3 ) ORIGINAL Petition No. 98 of 1997 was filed by the appellant herein/wife against her husband K. Yelleswara Rao Patrudu, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. ( 4 ) BEFORE the trial Court, common evidence was let in by both the parties. Since the two original petitions were disposed of by the trial Court by a common order and as the issues are also being almost common and inter-related, we are disposing of these two appeals by this common judgment. ( 5 ) FOR conveniene sake, in this judgment, we refer to the parties as wife and husband , respectively. That is to say, we refer the appellant in these two appeals, viz. , Smt. K. Sita Mahalakshmi as the wife and K. Yelleswara Rao Patrudu as the husband . ( 6 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the husband filed OP No. 85 of 1995 against the wife for divorce mainly two grounds - firstly that the wife is living in adultery and secondly she deserted him. The other details are not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. ( 7 ) AS could be seen from the pleadings of the parties, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23. 5. 1972 at Pydibhimavaram in Srikakulam district. At that time, the husband was working as an employee in Bharat Heavy plates and Vessels (BHPV), Visakhapatnam. The case of the husband is that his wife was having extra-marital relationship with one B. Gandhi, who was arrayed as second respondent in OP No. 85 of 1995 filed by him and even though he cautioned her not to continue her illicit relationship with the aforesaid Gandhi there was no change in her attitude. However, the husband continued his martial relationship with his wife and had three children through her. However, the husband continued his martial relationship with his wife and had three children through her. Somewhere in the year 1988, when the husband was residing along with his wife in the BHPV Quarters allotted to him, the husband came to know that several complaints were made by the residents of his neighbouring Quarters to the BHPV authorities that the wife/appellant herein was leading in adulterous life with various people and many people were visiting the Quarters of the husband, causing embarrassment and inconvenience to them in the colony. Basing on the said complaints, the management of the BHPV conducted enquiry and issued a show-cause notice to the husband as to why he shall not be evicted from the quarters allotted to him. Eventually, the husband was directed to vacate the quarters. Somewhere in the year 1989, the husband saw Mr. Gandhi (2nd respondent in OP No. 85 of 1995 filed by the husband) in his Quarter and his doubts about the conduct of the wife have crystallized. Then he contacted the parents of his wife and requested them to take her along with them and keep her with them for some time so that there would be change in her attitude. But, thereafter, the wife, in spite of staying with her parents for some time, shifted her residence from one place to another and started living independently. As a result, there was no chance for the husband to live with his wife. ( 8 ) IN the year 1991, the wife filed mc No. 20 of 1991 on the file of Additional judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram against the husband under Section 125 Cr. PC seeking maintenance for her and for her children alleging that the husband had deserted her and her three children. ( 9 ) CURIOUSLY enough, Mr. B. Gandhi, with whom the wife was allegedly having illicit intimacy, had also filed OP No. 240 of 1988 on the file of I Additional Subordinate judge, Visakhapatnam against his wife seeking divorce. That OP No. 240 of 1988 was seriously contested by the wife of mr. Gandhi by filing a counter-affidavit (the original of Ex. A15), specifically alleging that her husband Mr. Gandhi was having illicit intimacy with the appellant in these appeals, viz. , Smt. K. Sita Mahalakshmi. ( 10 ) EX. That OP No. 240 of 1988 was seriously contested by the wife of mr. Gandhi by filing a counter-affidavit (the original of Ex. A15), specifically alleging that her husband Mr. Gandhi was having illicit intimacy with the appellant in these appeals, viz. , Smt. K. Sita Mahalakshmi. ( 10 ) EX. A13 is the xerox copy of the order in MC No. 20 of 1991 passed by the additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, vizianagaram wherein the competent criminal Court held that the factum of the wife/appellant herein leading adulterous life was established, and the claim of the wife for maintenance was rejected while granting maintenance to the children. It appears, a revision had been preferred by the wife as against the order in MC no. 20 of 1991 before the Additional Sessions judge, Vizianagaram in Criminal Revision petition No. 35 of 1992. As could be seen from Ex. A14, certified copy of the order in crl. RP No. 35 of 1992, the Sessions Judge disposed of the revision petition enhancing the maintenance awarded to the children by the trial Court, without disturbing the finding recorded by the trial Court that the wife was leading adulterous life, while upholding the order of trial Court in rejecting maintenance to the wife. It must be noted that the aforesaid order of the Sessions judge had become final. ( 11 ) IN OP No. 85 of 1995, wife filed counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, that her husband brought another lady by name Rajeswari to his house somewhere in the year 1988 and sent her (wife) out of his house and, therefore, she was given shelter by her parents at their house. ( 12 ) MR. Gandhi, who is arrayed as second respondent in OP No. 85 of 1995 also filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments made by the husband in OP no. 85 of 1995. ( 13 ) IN OP No. 85 of 1995, filed by the husband, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :1. Whether there is adultery/sexual intercourse with the 2nd respondent by the wife warranting to grant divorce under Section 13 (l) (ib) of hindu Marriage Act ? 2. Whether there is voluntary desertion of two years prior to filing of the petition by the first respondent without any reasonable excuse warranting grant of divorce ? Whether there is adultery/sexual intercourse with the 2nd respondent by the wife warranting to grant divorce under Section 13 (l) (ib) of hindu Marriage Act ? 2. Whether there is voluntary desertion of two years prior to filing of the petition by the first respondent without any reasonable excuse warranting grant of divorce ? ( 14 ) WHEN the aforesaid OP No. 85 of 1995 filed by the husband was pending trial, wife filed OP No. 98 of 1997 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights and the husband contested the same by filing counter-affidavit. ( 15 ) IN OP No. 98 of 1997, filed by the wife, the following issue was framed for trial by the trial Court: whether the respondent is guilty of constructive desertion and without any reasonable excuse he deprived the conjugal happiness to the petitioner warranting to order restitution of conjugal rights? ( 16 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances, both the OPs. , were clubbed together and common trial was conducted by recording evidence in OP No. 85 of 1995 and treating the same as evidence in OP no. 98 of 1997. ( 17 ) BEFORE the trial Court, on behalf of the husband PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A29 were marked. On behalf of the wife RWs. 1 to 5 were examined. Exs. Xl to X10 were also marked. ( 18 ) CONSIDERING the oral and documentary evidence on record, by a common order, the trial Court allowed op No. 85 of 1995 filed by the husband dissolving his marriage with his wife and dismissed OP No. 98 of 1997 filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. ( 19 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid common order, wife has preferred these two appeals. ( 20 ) WE have heard Smt. N. (P ). Anjanadevi, learned Counsel appearing for the wife and Sri K. V. Simhadri, learned counsel appearing for the husband. ( 19 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid common order, wife has preferred these two appeals. ( 20 ) WE have heard Smt. N. (P ). Anjanadevi, learned Counsel appearing for the wife and Sri K. V. Simhadri, learned counsel appearing for the husband. ( 21 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the wife/appellant in these two appeals that even assuming that the wife was leading adulterous life with some other person since 1974 till 1989, when she was allegedly sent out of the house by her husband, the husband had cohabited with the wife and had three children through her and, therefore, the conduct of the husband in cohabiting with the wife amounts to condonation of the alleged adulterous life on the part of the wife. In support of her contention, learned Counsel for the wife/appellant relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Chandramohini v. Avinash Prasad, AIR 1967 SC 581 , the relevancy and applicability of which to the instant appeals would be dealt with separately at the appropriate stage during the course of this judgment. ( 22 ) THE other contentions like the one that the relationship between the wife and mr. Gandhi (2nd respondent in OP No. 85 of 1995 filed by the husband) is that of a son by courtesy etc. , are not very much relevant for the purpose of deciding these appeals. Therefore, we are not going much deep into the other details. We confine , ourselves only to the extent, which is absolutely relevant. ( 23 ) SRI K. V. Simhadri, learned Counsel for the husband vehemently contended that the orders under appeal do not warrant any interference and the trial Court on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties rightly dismissed OP No. 98 of 1997 filed by the wife and allowed OP No. 85 of 1995 filed by the husband. ( 24 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel on either side, we have carefully gone through the orders under appeal, the oral and documentary evidence available on record as well as the common order rendered by the Court below. ( 24 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel on either side, we have carefully gone through the orders under appeal, the oral and documentary evidence available on record as well as the common order rendered by the Court below. ( 25 ) NOW, the only point that falls for our consideration in these appeals is as to whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing OP No. 98 of 1997 filed by the wife and in allowing OP No. 85 of 1995? ( 26 ) PW1 is the husband. In his evidence, he spoke to the contents of OP no. 85 of 1995, which was filed by him, in detail. PW2 was an Officer of the BHPV, visakhapatnam. He spoke to the conduct of the wife/appellant. However, from the evidence available on record, the relevant evidence adduced by the husband is that of PW2 and PW3. ( 27 ) PW2 deposed to the effect that basing on certain complaints (Exs. A1 to A7) received from the inhabitants of the bhpv Quarters, Visakhapatnam, regarding the conduct of the wife (appellant in these appeals) an enquiry was conducted and a show-cause notice was issued to the husband as to why he should not be evicted from the Quarters. Ex. A8 is the enquiry report and Ex. A9 is the eviction notice issued to the husband by the BHPV authorities. Exs. A10 and A11 are the proceedings issued by the BHPV authorities to the husband for recovery of penal rent and Ex. A12 is the order passed by the bhpv authorities directing the husband to vacate the Quarters allotted to him, ( 28 ) A perusal of Exs. Al to A7 would only reveal that all those complaints were made by the residents of the neighburing quarters of the husband on the same lines alleging unacceptable behaviour on the part of the wife. It is to be noted that all those complaints are dated differently and by different persons. Therefore, there is no reason for us to think that all these complaints were made by the neigbhourers of the husband at the instance of the husband nor it was the case of the wife as such. It is to be noted that all those complaints are dated differently and by different persons. Therefore, there is no reason for us to think that all these complaints were made by the neigbhourers of the husband at the instance of the husband nor it was the case of the wife as such. Similarly, we have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW2, who was an Officer of BHPV at the relevant point of time, who testified the fact that an enquiry was conducted by the bhpv authorities, pursuant to the complaints received from the inhabitants of BHPV quarters which are adjacent to the Quarter allotted to the husband, regarding the unacceptable behaviour of the wife, in order to keep up the name and dignity of bhpv. His evidence is also to the effect that a show-cause notice was issued to the husband and finally the BHPV authorities directed the husband to vacate the Quarters allotted to him. ( 29 ) PW3 is the person to whom the husband entrusted with the work of handing-over the amount of maintenance payable by him to his children who are living with the wife. His evidence is to the effect that the wife (appellant herein) used to shift her residence frequently from one place to another and he always used to trace her residence with much difficulty in order to hand-over the maintenance amount to her which is meant for the children. ( 30 ) FROM the above evidence, two things are clear. Firstly, an independent agency-BHPV, which is no other than the employer of the husband had conducted an enquiry about the conduct of the wife pursuant to the complaints received by it from the employees residing in the quarters nearby the Quarter of the husband which culminated into issuance of a show-cause notice to the husband and ultimate order of evidence of the husband from the Quarters allotted to him by the bhpv. ( 31 ) BHARAT Heavy Plates and Vessels (BHPV) is an Organisation totally independent and it has nothing to do with the controversy or disputes between the wife and husband and BHPV had taken up the issue on its own, i. e. , on the basis of the complaints received by it from the inhabitants of its Quarters, and not at the behest of the husband. The order of eviction issued to the husband from the Quarters of bhpv is, in fact, issued on the ground of unacceptable conduct of the wife itself. Such an order, in our considered view, is a stigma more to the husband, because he has to still work for BHPV. Even though the husband walked out of the Quarters and the Colony somewhere in the year 1988, pursuant to the order of eviction, he was put to inexplicable embarrassment in the year 1988 itself due to the unacceptable conduct of the wife. That must have been the last straw for the husband. Added to this, the husband saw one Mr. Gandhi (2nd respondent in OP No. 85 of 1995 filed by him) in his Quarters along with the wife/ appellant herein during that period only. If these two incidents are juxtaposed, that was the relevant period for the husband to take a drastic decision to approach the Court seeking divorce from the wife. It is to be remembered that between 1988 and 1995 the maintenance proceedings in MC No. 20 of 1991 initiated by the wife were going on and came to an end in the year 1995. Then, obviously, the husband filed OP No. 85 of 1995 for divorce against the wife. ( 32 ) THE other factor that has to be taken into consideration is that in the maintenance case (MC No. 20 of 1991) a categorical finding was recorded by the criminal Court that the wife was not entitled to maintenance on the ground that she was leading an adulterous life. Of course, the children were granted maintenance. The wife had unsuccessfully carried the order in MC No. 20 of 1991 in revision in Criminal revision Petition No. 35 of 1992 to the additional Sessions Court, Vizianagaram, wherein the Sessions Court disposed of the revision by enhancing the maintenance to the children while upholding the order of the trial Court in rejecting maintenance to the wife. Ex. A14 is the order of the sessions Court in Crl. RP No. 35 of 1992, which has become final. Therefore, it can be said that a competent Court of law had already arrived at a conclusion that the wife was living in adultery. Ex. A14 is the order of the sessions Court in Crl. RP No. 35 of 1992, which has become final. Therefore, it can be said that a competent Court of law had already arrived at a conclusion that the wife was living in adultery. ( 33 ) AT this juncture, learned Counsel for the wife submits that the nature of proceedings in a maintenance case before a criminal Court under Section 125 Cr. PC are different from the nature of proceedings taken before a competent civil Court. It is her submission that the proceedings under section 125 Cr. PC are summary in nature whereas the proceedings before the civil court are elaborate. ( 34 ) WE have no manner of doubt that the findings recorded by a competent civil court are binding on the parties and the findings recorded by a criminal Court are not binding on the civil Court. In the instant appeals, having gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record, we are of the view that there is sufficient satisfactory and convincing evidence to the effect that the wife was living in adultery. ( 35 ) WE may mention that the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant would not really alter the situation in the present appeals. The finding recorded by the competent Court regarding the adulterous conduct of the wife had remained on record. So long as such finding regarding the adulterous conduct of the wife, though recorded and remained on record, even for the purpose of denying maintenance to the wife, in our opinion, it has become final and any opinion expressed/ recorded in any other proceedings would not really vitiate the findings recorded by the trial Court in the proceedings taken under Section 125 Cr. PC. ( 36 ) HOWEVER, it is to be remembered that even in the present common order under appeal, the trial Court had independently recorded a finding based on the evidence adduced before it that the wife was leading an adulterous life. Even if we ignore the finding recorded by the criminal Court, an independent finding regarding the adulterous conduct of the wife was recorded by the trial Court in the present appeals. In other words, there is no deviation from the finding recorded by the criminal Court under Section 125 Cr. PC regarding the adulterous conduct of the wife. Even if we ignore the finding recorded by the criminal Court, an independent finding regarding the adulterous conduct of the wife was recorded by the trial Court in the present appeals. In other words, there is no deviation from the finding recorded by the criminal Court under Section 125 Cr. PC regarding the adulterous conduct of the wife. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the criminal Court is not relevant and binding on the civil Court, though relevant, is not helpful to the case of the appellant. ( 37 ) YET another aspect borne out of record is that the wife of Mr. Gandhi (2nd respondent in OP No. 85 of 1995 filed by the husband), with whom the wife was allegedly leading adulterous life, filed counter- affidavit in OP No. 240 of 1988, which was filed by Mr. Gandhi seeking divorce from his wife. In that counter-affidavit, the wife of Mr. Gandhi had specifically alleged that mr. Gandhi was having illicit intimacy with the appellant herein. Notwithstanding the outcome of the said OP No. 240 of 1988 filed by Mr. Gandhi against his wife seeking divorce, we are of the considered view that the fact of illicit intimacy between the appellant herein and Mr. Gandhi was in the knowledge of others, including the wife of Mr. Gandhi. ( 38 ) IT is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the wife (appellant) that the wife examined RW2 and RW3 in order to substantiate her contention that she was not leading adulterous life. ( 39 ) HOWEVER, a perusal of the evidence of RW2 and RW3 would clearly disclose that RWs. 2 and 3 were not the immediate neighbours of the wife. They lived in the opposite house of the wife only for some time and later on shifted to a far off place. Therefore, RWs. 2 and 3 cannot be said to be the immediate neighbourers of the wife for a considerable period. They might be the neighbourers of the wife only for a short period, which is negligible. In our view, the evidence of RWs. 2 and 3, which is in the negative form, is no way helpful to the case of the wife. 2 and 3 cannot be said to be the immediate neighbourers of the wife for a considerable period. They might be the neighbourers of the wife only for a short period, which is negligible. In our view, the evidence of RWs. 2 and 3, which is in the negative form, is no way helpful to the case of the wife. In fact, the fact of illicit intimacy of the wife with others, basing on the complaints of third parties who are no other than the immediate neighbourers of the wife, was enquired into by the Management of the BHPV which is an independent organization and a conclusion was arrived at to the effect that the wife was leading an adulterous life belittling the dignity of the organization. Hence, we are not inclined to rely on the evidence of RWs. 2 and 3. ( 40 ) COMING to the decision in chandramohini s case (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it is to be seen that it was a case where an application was filed under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that cohabitation of the husband with his wife with the knowledge that the wife was leading an adulterous life amounts to condonation of the adulterous conduct on the part of the wife. ( 41 ) THE law laid down by the apex court in Chandramohini s case (supra), is unexceptionable. But, in the instant appeals, the facts and circumstances are quite different from that of the decision cited supra. In this case, it is not the case of the husband that he had definite knowledge about the adulterous conduct of the wife nor was there any proof before him. After all, adulterous conduct will be a secret act for which it is very difficult to collect any evidence to substantiate the same. Till such adulterous act is actually seen or noticed or till there is direct evidence to that effect, adulterous life will only be a belief but cannot be treated as a fact. ( 42 ) THE mere belief is also not sufficient. It should be strong, reasonable, convincing and capable of being established by other circumstances. Till such adulterous act is actually seen or noticed or till there is direct evidence to that effect, adulterous life will only be a belief but cannot be treated as a fact. ( 42 ) THE mere belief is also not sufficient. It should be strong, reasonable, convincing and capable of being established by other circumstances. Therefore, it is to be seen that though it is the belief, or suspicion of the husband, that the wife has been leading adulterous life since 1974, he was living with her. That does not mean that the husband had a concrete proof about the adulterous life of the wife and despite which he had been cohabiting with the wife thereby condoning the adulterous conduct of the wife. The husband in this case filed OP No. 85 of 1995 only after his doubt or suspicion, which had been lingering in his mind, had been crystallized by the proceedings initiated by the BHPV for eviction of the Quarters allotted to him on the basis of the complaints of the occupants of the neighbouring Quarters about the adulterous conduct of the wife. Therefore, in this case, the husband has rightly and as an ordinary prudent person, requested the parents of the wife to take her to their house and keep her there for some time in order to keep her away from this illicit atmosphere and to give the wife a chance to mend or correct herself. As expected by the husband, though initially the wife lived with her parents for a short period, she started living independently shifting her residence from one place to another. This fact has been established by the evidence of PW3, who categorically deposed that the wife used to change her residence frequently from one place to the other. This conduct on the part of the wife also is sufficient, in our view, to formulate a feeling that the wife was not in a mood to join her husband and was evading the husband somehow or the other by shifting her residence frequently. Therefore, it cannot be said that the husband had deserted the wife without any excuse or reasonable cause. In fact, it could be the other way round. ( 43 ) FURTHERMORE, and most significantly, the wife did not make any attempt to join the husband especially when it was her case that the husband had deserted her. Therefore, it cannot be said that the husband had deserted the wife without any excuse or reasonable cause. In fact, it could be the other way round. ( 43 ) FURTHERMORE, and most significantly, the wife did not make any attempt to join the husband especially when it was her case that the husband had deserted her. Immediate on the alleged desertion of the husband, except filing a maintenance case, no steps were taken by the wife to file an application under Section 9 of the hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In fact, had the wife been a prudent woman, who is eager and willing to join her husband, she could and should have immediately filed an application seeking restitution of conjugal rights against her husband. She did not do so immediately. Quite interestingly, she filed OP No. 98 of 1997 seeking restitution of conjugal rights only two years after the husband filed OP No. 85 of 1995 for divorce. This conduct on the part of the wife further establishes that she was not at all eager and willing to join her husband. Her attempt appears to be only to fight the litigation in order to put a brave face. We do not find any moral or real ground for the wife in op No. 98 of 1997 filed by her under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights or in the contentions raised in OP No. 85 of 1995 filed by the husband under Section 13 (1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce. ( 44 ) HAVING bestowed our careful attention to the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that all the aspects of the matter have been elaborately dealt with by the trial Court and the evidence on record has been properly appreciated with cogent and convincing reasons. In that view of the matter, we hold that the trial court rightly dismissed OP No. 98 of 1997 filed by the wife and allowed OP No. 85 of 1995 filed by the husband. We do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. ( 45 ) HOWEVER, the present situation is that all the children of the estranged spouses are majors, and are well settled in life. We do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are liable to be dismissed. ( 45 ) HOWEVER, the present situation is that all the children of the estranged spouses are majors, and are well settled in life. It appears that the children are also extending a helping hand to the wife and that the marriage of the female child was performed by the husband. Notwithstanding all these facts, we feel it expedient to award some amount to the wife towards permanent alimony to live a decent life. Taking an overall view of the matter, we feel it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the wife towards permanent alimony payable by the husband. ( 46 ) IN the result, both the appeals are dismissed without costs. However, we direct the husband to deposit a sum of rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards permanent alimony payable to the wife to the credit of OP No. 98 of 1997, on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the husband. It is made clear that upon such deposit, the wife/appellant herein is entitled to withdraw the same unconditionally.