Prakash Tatia, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is against the divorce decree dated 24.5.2005 passed by the Court of District Judge, Pali in Civil Misc. Case No. 12/2004 filed by the respondent, husband of the appellant. 3. The unfortunate facts of the case are that there were several rounds of litigations between the appellant and the respondent which started within a period of 2 years from time of their marriage, which took place on 20.02.1981. The allegations are of serious nature and that too in relation to the character of the appellant as the respondent husband in his first divorce petition No. 258/1988 (Old No. 124/1985) alleged that the appellant developed illicit relationship with some other person and gave birth to one child. That allegation was found to be wrong by the Court in the decision on the respondent’s divorce petition dt. 12.06.1989. The appellant levelled serious allegations against the character of her father-in-law and alleged that he tried to molest the appellant. The appellant could not prove that allegation in divorce petition No. 258/1988 filed by the respondent. The disputed developed between the parties within two years from the time of marriage and the appellant’s brother submitted an application under Sec. 97 Cr.P.C. For getting release the appellant from the alleged illegal confinement by the respondent and in that proceedings initiated on 31.01.1983 by the appellant’s brother in the Court of the S.D.M., Pali, the S.D.M. Pali issued search warrant on the very same day i.e. 31.01.1983 itself. In pursuance of that order, the appellant was produced in the Court of S.D.M. Pali on 02.02.1983. In the same proceedings, the appellant gave her statements alleging that she was illegally confined by the respondent and his family members and she was treated cruelly. Apart from the said proceedings, the respondent husband submitted divorce petition No. 258/1988 which was decided by the Family Court, Ajmer vide judgment and decree dated 12.06.1989 by dismissing the divorce petition on the grounds mentioned above. The respondent preferred DB Appeal No. 337/1989 before Jaipur Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Judges of this Court made efforts favor settlement between the parties and because of the good efforts of the Hon’ble Judges, both the parties started living together and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 26.03.1991. The respondent preferred DB Appeal No. 337/1989 before Jaipur Bench of this Court. The Hon’ble Judges of this Court made efforts favor settlement between the parties and because of the good efforts of the Hon’ble Judges, both the parties started living together and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 26.03.1991. Despite reunion, the parties could not live together for a long period and again within two years, they started living separate. 4. The respondent filed another divorce petition in the Family Court, Ajmer being Case No. 84/1997 but that was dismissed by the Family Court, Ajmer for want of territorial jurisdiction and thereafter, this third divorce petition has been filed by the respondent husband. 5. It appears from the record that the dispute of the appellant and respondent was reported by the newspapers also. Copy of newspaper has been placed on the record of this case. In sum and substance, in a case of marriage in the year 1981, the husband and wife lived together for about two years period initially i.e. 23 years ago from now and thereafter lived for about two years in the year 1991 and 1992 i.e. about 14 to 15 years ago from now. 6. After dismissal of the respondent’s second divorce petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the respondent husband has filed this third petition on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 7. The ground for divorce in the petition is of levelling false allegation against the character of the respondent’s father and desertion of the respondent by appellant for six years period and it is also pleaded that the appellant in her reply to the divorce petition clearly stated that she is not ready to live with the respondent at any cost. The respondent also pleaded that because of the facts mentioned above, now it is not possible for the respondent to live with the appellant. 8. The appellant submitted, detail reply to the divorce petition and submitted that out of the wedlock, two daughters and one son were born to her. She admitted she was got released from the confinement of the respondent by the help of police. She also stated that earlier two divorce petitions were filed by the respondent which were dismissed and the respondent has levelled totally false allegation against the appellant. She admitted she was got released from the confinement of the respondent by the help of police. She also stated that earlier two divorce petitions were filed by the respondent which were dismissed and the respondent has levelled totally false allegation against the appellant. She stated that because of good intervention of Hon’ble Judges of the Rajasthan High Court hearing appeal, she started living with the respondent husband. She also denied that she did put any pressure upon the respondent for living at Bilara. Despite all allegations of misbehaviour against the respondent and allegation of attempt to molest her by the respondent’s father, the appellant submitted that she still loved her husband. She also stated that the respondent virtually had no income and, therefore, the respondent himself insisted that the appellant should join some service. The respondent accompanied the appellant when she went for interview for selection on the post of Teacher and because of his wish, she joined the service. However, she used to come to her house at Bilara every Saturday night and lived with the husband. In her reply, the appellant again stated that the treatment which was given to her on 27.7.1992 is sinful act of the respondent. It is also alleged that the respondent deceitfully opened the appellant’s bank account in his name and appellant’s name and he withdrew rupees from the said bank account. She also submitted that during the period of pregnancy, she was not given proper diet which caused serious weakness in her. It is also submitted that during the period of pregnancy, she was abused by the respondent and she was also given beating. Not only that that she as beaten by the respondent, the appellant’s children were also given severe beatings by the respondent and after beating, she was turned out of the house and the respondent put a lock on the gate of the house. The appellant went to the police station and the police persons gave money for bus ticket and in this situation, she reached to her parents house. In the reply, the appellant again asserted that whatever she has written about the respondent’s father (about attempt of her molestation by the respondent’s father) is true fact. However, it is difficult for her to prove this allegation. In the reply, the appellant again asserted that whatever she has written about the respondent’s father (about attempt of her molestation by the respondent’s father) is true fact. However, it is difficult for her to prove this allegation. The appellant also submitted that all the acts stand condoned with the settlement between the appellant and the respondent in appeal against decree dismissing respondent’s divorce petition by the trial Court. The appellant also submitted that her ornaments are lying in the custody of the respondent. 9. Rejoinder was submitted by the respondent to the reply filed by the appellant. 10. The trial Court framed issues on the allegation of desertion and cruelty. In the trial Court, the respondent gave his statement as AW-1 and produced witnesses AW-2 Budhraj (father of the respondent) and AW-3 Ugam Raj (neighbour). In rebuttal, the appellant gave her statement as NAW-1 and produced witnesses NAW-2 Neeraj Bafna, son of the appellant, NAW-3 Shanti Lal (brother of the appellant) and NAW-4 Humki Chand Bafna, brother-in-law of the appellant. 11. The trial Court decreed the divorce petition on the ground of desertion and mental cruelty. Hence, this appeal by the appellant/non-applicant - wife of respondent. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the respondent filed divorce petition No. 258/1988 which was dismissed by the Court after trial by judgment and decree dt. 12.06.1989. DB Appeal No. 337/1989 was preferred by the respondent husband which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dt. 26.03.1991. Therefore, the allegations levelled by the respondent of the period before 1991 cannot be a ground for seeking divorce. With the compromise and thereafter living of the appellant and the respondent together and thereafter birth of one child is a relevant fact and though there was no fault of the appellant but even if there was any fault on the part of the appellant, that stands condoned. It is submitted that in the divorce petition, the respondent is again seeking divorce on the basis of the allegations which were in existence before 26.3.1991. It is submitted that in the divorce petition, the respondent is again seeking divorce on the basis of the allegations which were in existence before 26.3.1991. It is also submitted that it is a grave case in as much as, immediately after two years only, the appellant’s brother got the appellant released from the illegal confinement from the home of the respondent and she was produced in the Court of S.D.M., Pali on moving search application under Sec. 97 Cr.P.C. As back as in the year 1983 itself, the appellant gave her statement before the S.D.M., Pali narrating all the facts which clearly shows that the appellant could not have lived with the respondent and there was reasonable apprehension of injury to her body and even to her life from the respondent. Despite this, the appellant being honest to relation agreed to live with the husband and in fact, lived with the husband. The appellant by cogent evidence proved that there is reasonable cause for her not living with the husband and she further proved that she was turned out by the husband and when she was turned out, she had no money even to travel to her parent’s house. In such a situation, the Court below committed serious error of fact as well as error of law in passing the divorce decree that too on the grounds which were rejected by the Court in the respondent’s earlier divorce petition. Learned counsel for the appellant read over the statement of the respondent and his witnesses to show that the respondent admitted that the appellant was recovered from the house of the respondent by the police. The respondent also admitted all the facts in the divorce petition about the previous litigation. The respondent’s own son in his statement clearly stated how the appellant and respondent’s son and daughters were cruelly treated by the respondent. In view of the said statement, it is clear that the appellant was forced to leave the house of the appellant and there was reasonable apprehension for the appellant about her safety in case, she would have lived with the respondent. The appellant’s brother Shanti Lal also disclosed how his sister was cruelly treated by the respondent. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent husband vehemently submitted that the facts speak loudly against the appellant. The appellant’s brother Shanti Lal also disclosed how his sister was cruelly treated by the respondent. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent husband vehemently submitted that the facts speak loudly against the appellant. The appellant levelled absolutely filthy allegations against the respondent’s father and despite the fact that she could not prove those allegations in earlier filed divorce petition No. 258/1988, still she levelled allegation again and again. Not only this, even in reply to this divorce petition, she clearly admitted that she levelled allegations against the respondent’s father about the character of respondent’s father and his act of attempting to molest the appellant. Since 1983, the litigations are going on between the appellant and the respondent and till this third divorce petition filed by the respondent on 13.8.1998, the appellant and respondent lived together for a very small period i.e. in some months of 1991 and 1992 and before that for two years from 20.2.1981 to 31.1.1983. Looking to the serious allegations and counter allegations by both the parties and living separately since 1992 for more than 14 years, now it is not possible that the appellant and respondent can live together. It is a case of irretrievable break down of the marriage and in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, irretrievable break down can be a ground for passing a decree for divorce. Here in this case, the Court below has held that the respondent was cruelly treated by the appellant and the appellant deserted the respondent. Therefore, the Appellate Court may not interfere in the findings recorded by the Court below. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent also tried to support the judgment and decree passed by the Court below with the help of evidence produced by the parties and referred the documents produced by the parties which include the decision of divorce petition No. 258/1988, reply filed by the appellant in divorce petition (Ex.5), order-sheets dated 31.1.1983 passed in petition under Sec. 97 Cr.P.C. (Ex.7), copy of telegram (Ex.8). Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the statement of respondent and appellant’s son-Neeraj (NAW-2) clearly shows that he gave his statement as tutored witness only. The statement on the face of it is exaggeration only and his statement deserves to be rejected as highly improbable. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the statement of respondent and appellant’s son-Neeraj (NAW-2) clearly shows that he gave his statement as tutored witness only. The statement on the face of it is exaggeration only and his statement deserves to be rejected as highly improbable. The other witness produced by the appellant are her brother-in-law and brother who are deeply interested in the appellant whereas the respondent produced independent witness also. 15. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and statements of all the witnesses as well as the judgments cited. 16. The facts in brief may be recapitulated. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent took place on 20.2.1981 and they lived together up to 31.1.1983. They separated with the help of the police in proceedings under Sec. 97 Cr.P.C. with the intervention of the Court i.e. Court of S.D.M., Pali From 1983 to 1991 for about eight years, they lived separate and the petition for divorce filed by the respondent was pursued by the respondent upto the year 1991. Efforts were made by the High Court but despite the successful intervention of High Court and living of appellant and the respondent together for a very short period, they started living separately from September, 1992. The allegations by the appellant against the respondent’s father are of grave nature. The appellant levelled these allegations in the reply to earlier divorce petition and that act may stand condoned with the decision of the appellant and the respondent to live together in the year 1991, during the pendency of the appeal against the judgment and decree in divorce petition No. 258/1988 but in this divorce petition itself, the appellant again stated that whatever she has written about the character of the respondent’s father was true and correct thereby, she again levelled the same allegation in the year 1998. Despite such serious allegation in her reply to divorce petition, the appellant in her examination-in-chief did not utter a single word about the alleged act of the respondent’s father. There are further allegations that the respondent tried to kidnap the appellant and respondent’s daughter Dhiraj and at that time, said baby told the respondent that in view of his behaviour with her mother, she (the daughter) is not prepared to look the face of the respondent. There are further allegations that the respondent tried to kidnap the appellant and respondent’s daughter Dhiraj and at that time, said baby told the respondent that in view of his behaviour with her mother, she (the daughter) is not prepared to look the face of the respondent. Therefore, so far as the finding of the trial Court about causing mental cruelty against the respondent is concerned, that stands fully proved and that is based on subsequent cause of action that is levelling same false allegation about character of respondent’s father again in reply to the present divorce petition. The allegation of the appellant against the respondent’s father cannot be ignored or can be taken lightly because of the reason that in matrimonial relations, if there are serious allegations for the character of the parents of the spouse, then that itself may be a serious mental cruelty and chances of reconciliation between the parties may become almost nil. Looking to the attitude of both the parties and the allegations by the appellant, it cannot be said that it is a case of taking advantage of his own wrong by the respondent. The fact is that in the light of these allegations, both cannot live together and it is a case of irretrievable break down of marriage. The concept of irretrievable broke down of the marriage which is not the ground under Sec. 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act appears to have been recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, in a recent judgment delivered in the case of Naveen kohli vs. Neelu Kohli reported in (2006)4 SCC 558 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it will be against the interest of both the parties as well as against the interest of society to refuse to grant decree of divorce in the case where the marriage has broken down irretrievably. 17. In view of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohli, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant delivered in the cases of [1] Chandra Mohan Khurana vs. Smt. Neeta Khurana reported in AIR 2006 Uttranchal 47 and [2] Shyam Sunder Kohli vs. Sushma Kohli alias Satya Devi reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5857, have no application to the facts of the present case. 18. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant delivered in the cases of [1] Chandra Mohan Khurana vs. Smt. Neeta Khurana reported in AIR 2006 Uttranchal 47 and [2] Shyam Sunder Kohli vs. Sushma Kohli alias Satya Devi reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5857, have no application to the facts of the present case. 18. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in any case, if the divorce decree is upheld, then in the case decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the of Manjula vs. K.R. Mahesh reported in 2006 AIR SCW 3766, proper arrangements for the welfare of the children be made and the appellant is entitled to maintenance under Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 19. For this, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant in her own reply clearly admitted that the respondent had virtually no income and, therefore, she cannot claim any maintenance. However, so far as his obligation towards the children is concerned, the respondent is ready to make provision for children but only upto the extent of his means. 20. For making any arrangement for the children, their education and marriages etc. and claim of maintenance of the appellant is concerned, there is lack of pleadings as well as evidence on record. The appellant can file application for grant of maintenance under Sec. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also has right to claim benefit for her minor children. Since there is no material available on the record and there is big difference between claim and counter claim, therefore, it will be appropriate that the appellant may approach the Court below by moving application for appropriate relief which can be considered and decided by the Court below after taking evidence but expeditiously. 21. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to move appropriate application for relief of maintenance before the Court of law. * * * * *