JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Family Court dated 14.9.1994 preferred by the wife of respondent-Heera Lal who is Smt. Premwati against the grant of decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Ajmer (Raj.). 2. The appellant and the respondent had admittedly been married in the year 1969 and they lived together up to the year 1981. They also had a son out of their wedlock but thereafter it appears that differences arose between the couple as a result of which they separated and ceased to live together. According to the. appellant-wife she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the respondent-husband Heera Lal as according to the wife, he was 1 unduly attached to the widow of his deceased brother and she alleged illicit relationship between her husband and the sister-in-law. As a consequence of this, the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home and started living separately. The respondent-husband Heera Lal thereafter filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights bearing case No. 82/88 which was allowed ex-parte on 1.11.1988. It is obvious that as a consequence of this order the appellant-wife was legally bound to join her husband and should have started living together. Although she initially accepted that she is prepared to live with her husband, she laid down three conditions for joining her husband. One of the conditions was that the entire property standing in the name of her husband should be transferred in her name. The second condition was that the entire amount of maintenance which had been ordered to be paid to her by a Court at New Delhi should be paid to her. The third condition was that the husband should approach her with some responsible person and give an undertaking before the Court that he will not trouble her in any manner in case she accepts to live with him. Thereafter, it appears that although the respondent-husband agreed to accept the second and third conditions regarding the payment of maintenance and undertaking for living with his wife without troubling her, the first condition that the entire property be transferred in her name was not acceptable to the respondent-husband. This became a bone of contention between the couple and they continued to live separately. This became a bone of contention between the couple and they continued to live separately. After expiry of the statutory period of one year essential for the couple to give effect to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the husband filed an application for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of not giving effect to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court, after meticulously examining the evidence led by the contesting parties, recorded a finding that the appellant-wife refused to live with her husband without any just cause and the condition put by her that she would return to matrimonial home only if the entire properties were transferred in her name, was unreasonable condition. It was also noted that she was unfair in levelling unfounded allegations against her husband regarding illicit relationship between her husband and his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). It was explained by the counsel for the respondent- husband that in fact the respondent-husband lost his brother at a young age and there was no male member in the family who was earning and could undertake the responsibility of the entire family. The expectation of the wife that he should detach himself from the entire responsibility of the family was most unreasonable on the part of the wife and, therefore, she was held liable for resisting the decree for restitution of conjugal rights by not cooperating to live with her husband by laying down unreasonable, stringent and unworkable conditions. The learned Judge of the family court, therefore, was pleased to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband against which this appeal has been preferred by the wife. 4. The counsel for the appellant-wife Mr. Resham Bhargava, while assailing the judgment and order of the Family Court granting a decree of divorce, could not explain as to what exactly is the intention of the appellant-wife as the counsel for the respondent-husband had clearly stated that he is still prepared to live with his wife since he is not guilty of creating any condition due to which the wife resisted the decree of restitution of conjugal right by not joining him. He is, therefore, not prepared to pay any alimony for grant of a decree of divorce. He is, therefore, not prepared to pay any alimony for grant of a decree of divorce. In fact the question for grant of permanent alimony was nowhere in the picture since a categorical statement was made by Mr. Kapoor on behalf of the respondent-husband that the respondent, who is more than 50 years, is no longer interested in re-marrying but he is interested in living with his wife. But, it was further submitted on behalf of the husband that if the wife is not prepared to live with him, then he is not prepared to remain away from his wife without a decree of divorce which has already been granted in his favour. 5. We had suggested it to the counsel for the appellant-wife that in view of the statement of the respondent-husband, the court would be prepared to adjourn the matter to allow the wife to live with her husband for some time on trial basis after which the Court can set aside the decree of divorce which has been granted in favour of the respondent-husband. But, this suggestion was not acceptable to the counsel for the appellant-wife and thus we fail to understand what exactly is the stand and intention of the wife. It is obvious that the appellant wife is neither prepared to live with her husband nor agrees to give her consent for a mutual divorce; yet she has filed an appeal challenging the grant of decree of divorce, the reason of which is difficult to appreciate. From this approach, we inferred that perhaps she is interested in claiming alimony from her husband which is not acceptable to the respondent-husband in view of the fact that he is prepared to live with his wife in case she cooperates. 6. Thus, the picture which emerges from the whole episode is that the appellant-wife although has preferred this appeal challenging the decree of divorce, she is not prepared to live with her husband after 23 years of separation although the husband has given his consent to live with his wife and this Court was also prepared to provide all possible assistance to restore their conjugal rights. We of course do appreciate the long time separation between them which makes it difficult for the wife to go back to her husband but in that event we fail to appreciate her effort to challenge the decree of divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband. It is, therefore, difficult for this Court to set aside the decree of divorce and direct the respondent to pay permanent alimony to the wife in lieu of a decree of divorce. Perhaps that would have been possible if the wife could succeed in proving that the wife was compelled to leave her husband's house which she has failed to establish as the evidence disclosed that it is she who had imposed unreasonable condition for returning to her matrimonial home. The entire sequence of events indicates that the appellant-wife in spite of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was not prepared to join her husband and she is coming out openly even now that she is not interested in living with her husband but would claim permanent alimony. In this scenario even if the decree of divorce were to be set aside, the contesting parties will be left nowhere as in spite of setting aside the decree of divorce the wife would live separately and the husband will live alone. The appellant-wife, under the circumstance, cannot succeed in getting the decree of divorce set aside specially when she has failed to make out a case that it is the husband who has refused to live with his wife. The respondent-husband also had filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights and is still offering to live with his wife. If the wife had any reason to challenge the grant of decree of divorce, she was under a legal duty to lead evidence to the effect that the husband had ill-treated her and had created conditions which made it possible to live with him. In the absence of any evidence on this count it is difficult to 1 interfere with the decree granting divorce in favour of the respondent- husband. From the facts and circumstances which emerges from the case and counter case, an inference can safely be drawn that the appellant-wife is not interested in living with her husband and yet she is insisting for setting aside the decree of divorce which cannot be accepted in view of her 1 conflicting stand. From the facts and circumstances which emerges from the case and counter case, an inference can safely be drawn that the appellant-wife is not interested in living with her husband and yet she is insisting for setting aside the decree of divorce which cannot be accepted in view of her 1 conflicting stand. The couple have lived separately for more than 23 years and the wife refusing to join her husband for no reason could not even make out a case for grant of alimony in her favour. In fact when we stated that if the wife is able to prove any act of omission and commission on the part of the husband, the court would be prepared to grant permanent alimony in lieu of a decree of divorce, the counsel for the appellant strongly reacted and submitted that the wife is not interested in getting the permanent alimony but she is interested in getting the decree of divorce set aside. On this contention when we directed her to go and join her husband in order to live with him even if it were on a trial basis, the offer was flatly refused by her counsel although this appeal has been preferred for setting aside the decree of divorce. 7. Under the existing circumstance and situation this court is left with no option than to uphold the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court and hence we dismiss the appeal. We accordingly confirm the order of the Family Court granting a decree of divorce.Appeal dismissed. *******