Prakash Tatia, J.—This appeal is against the judgment and decree dt. 11.04.1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No. 49/90 by which the trial Court granted decree for divorce in favour of respondent-husband against the appellant-wife. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent took place on 27.04.1971 in a small village Nimba-ka-bas. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the husband was of the age of 13 years and the wife was of the age of 12 years. According to the applicant-respondent-husband, the marriage was never consummated initially because of the tender age of the appellant and the respondent. The appellant for the first time, came in the house of the respondent only in the year 1975, four years after the marriage after attaining age of understanding but at that time the applicant-respondent was sick and, therefore, there was no physical relation established between the appellant and the respondent. According to the applicant-respondent, the appellant non-applicant wife lived with the respondent-applicant upto 1984 only. During this period of 13 years from the time of marriage of 9 years from the time of coming of appellant to the house of the respondent, no physical relation established between the two. 3. The respondent-applicant also pleaded that the appellant was of free mind and also was of bad character. She used to abuse the respondent and his family members with abusive language and also used to say that the respondent is impotent and a mad person, therefore, she did not want to live with the respondent. It is also alleged that the appellant-non-applicant developed illicit relationship with one Megha Ram and another Deva Ram and gave birth to one child and she killed her child. It is further submitted that even in the year 1982 when respondent-applicant’s relatives went to the house of the appellant-non-applicant, they found the appellant in compromising position with said Megha Ram, therefore, the appellant is living as adulterous life. The respondent, therefore, sought decree for divorce on the ground of desertion, cruelty and appellant’s living adulterous life. It is further submitted that even in the year 1982 when respondent-applicant’s relatives went to the house of the appellant-non-applicant, they found the appellant in compromising position with said Megha Ram, therefore, the appellant is living as adulterous life. The respondent, therefore, sought decree for divorce on the ground of desertion, cruelty and appellant’s living adulterous life. The divorce petition was filed by the respondent in the Court on 12.10.1990, i.e., after 19 years from the time of marriage and after six years from their living separate, according to respondent-applicant’s own allegation and after eight years from finding the appellant’s life as adulterous. 4. The non-applicant wife submitted detailed reply and submitted that she lived with her husband and also had physical relations with her husband. She also gave birth to one child who subsequently died. It is submitted that about 7-8 years before she was turned out by respondent and his family members after giving beating. It is submitted that the appellant tried to settle the matter with the intervention of number of persons and several efforts were made. She denied her relationship with Megha Ram and Deva Ram and also submitted that in fact Megha Ram and Deva Ram are their close relations and the applicant-respondent has levelled false allegations so that he can get rid of from the appellant. She also stated that she gave birth to one child of the respondent and not of any other person. The respondent-appellant also submitted that after living at his brother’s house for some time and after failing in all reconciliation efforts, she submitted a petition for getting maintenance on 03.05.1990 which was decided by the Court in favour of the appellant. 5. The above mentioned Megha Ram and Deva Ram were also impleaded as party. After impleading Deva Ram and Megha Ram as party, another reply was filed by the non-applicant Smt. Lichhama and Deva Ram and Megha Ram and in this also, the same pleas were taken which were taken earlier. 6. The trial Court framed issues on the question of desertion, cruelty and appellant’s adulterous life and also framed issued whether the appellant was turned out by the respondent. It was also a plea taken by the appellant that to avoid his liability under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C., the respondent has filed this divorce petition. 6. The trial Court framed issues on the question of desertion, cruelty and appellant’s adulterous life and also framed issued whether the appellant was turned out by the respondent. It was also a plea taken by the appellant that to avoid his liability under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C., the respondent has filed this divorce petition. The applicant gave his statement as AW-1 and produced witnesses AW-2 Mota Ram, AW-3 Narayan Ram and AW-4 Chhotu Ram. He also produced his medical report and his School certificate and some other documents. The respondent-appellant gave her statement as NAW-1 and produced witnesses NAW-2 Raju Ram, NAW-3 Bhagirath Ram and NAW-4 Dana Ram. 7. The trial Court while deciding issue No. 1 held that the appellant-non-applicant by her own free will, is living separate from the respondent-applicant husband and hereby she deserted the respondent-husband. While deciding issue No. 2, the trial Court held that the respondent was cruely treated by the appellant. While deciding issue No. 3, about appellant’s adulterous life, an additional issue which was in relation to the alleged illicit relationship of the appellant with Megha Ram and Deva Ram, the trial Court categorically held that the respondent-applicant failed to prove that the appellant had any illicit relationship with Megha Ram and Deva Ram, however, the trial Court, on the basis of birth of one child to appellant, held that since that child was not of the respondent, therefore, the appellant was living adulterous life. The trial Court also held that the appellant-non-applicant failed to prove that cruelty was committed by the respondent. In view of the finding of the trial Court, the about appellant’s adulterous life, desertion of the respondent by the appellant and on the ground of cruelty committed by the appellant upon the respondent, the decree for divorce was granted on 11.04.1996. 8. Being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dt. 11.04.1996, the appellant-non-applicant wife of respondent No.1 has preferred this appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 3 is self-contradictory and based on no evidence. It is submitted that the trial Court itself categorically held that the respondent-applicant failed to prove appellant’s physical relation with Megha Ram and Deva Ram and it was never the allegation of the respondent upon the appellant that she had relations with any other persons. It is submitted that the trial Court itself categorically held that the respondent-applicant failed to prove appellant’s physical relation with Megha Ram and Deva Ram and it was never the allegation of the respondent upon the appellant that she had relations with any other persons. In view of the above, the finding of the trial Court is self-contradictory and further there is no evidence that the child to whom the appellant gave birth was not of the respondent Rupa Ram husband of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant and respondent lived as husband and wife since 1971 after their marriage and divorce petition has been filed in the year 1990 after about 19 years. This fact itself clearly reveals that the respondent has filed the present divorce petition to counter the appellant’s application filed under Sec. 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Since 1971 to 1990, there was no allegation against the character of the appellant. 10. It is submitted that the respondent since joined the government service whereas the appellant is illiterate lady of a small village and, therefore, the respondent wants to leave the appellant and for that purpose he has levelled false allegations. The appellant was turned out by the respondent and his family members after giving beating and treating the appellant with cruelty. The appellant never deserted the respondent nor she has committed any cruelty but in fact the appellant is victim of cruelty of respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred the evidence of both the parties to show that in fact there was no dispute between both the parties for a long period of their married life but subsequently with ill-motive the respondent filed the divorce petition. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred the evidence of both the parties to show that in fact there was no dispute between both the parties for a long period of their married life but subsequently with ill-motive the respondent filed the divorce petition. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court delivered in the case of Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, 2002 DNJ (SC) 121 wherein Hon’ble the Apex Court refused to grant divorce decree sought by the wife on finding that the wife herself is guilty of abandoning the matrimonial home and in the case of Perminder Charan Singh vs. Harjit Kaur, 2003 (2) DNJ (SC) 417 the Hon’ble Apex Court found that the allegation of cruelty not satisfactorily proved and, therefore, the High Court was right in setting aside the decree for divorce and in the case of Shyam Sunder Kohili vs. Sushma Kohli @ Satya Devi, 2005 CDR 222 (SC) 222, the Hon’ble Apex held that on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage, the Court must not lightly dissolve the marriage. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that it is admitted case that the appellant and respondent both were minor at the time of marriage. In view of the customs prevailing in Rajasthan, the marriage took place in tender age of the boy and girl and as per the customs and when they attained the age of maturity, the wife is sent to the house of the respondent, therefore, the marriage of the appellant in the year 1971 was only ritual and the effective time of marriage can be considered from 1975 when the appellant came to the house of the respondent. The marriage was not consummated because of the non-cooperation of the appellant. Since 1985 the appellant is not living with the husband-respondent. The appellant avoided physical relationship for a long period and that itself is mental cruelty caused by the appellant upon the respondent. She used to talk in very filthy language and that also caused mental torture for the respondent. The respondent was abused by the appellant and she refused to have any relation with the respondent. The appellant avoided physical relationship for a long period and that itself is mental cruelty caused by the appellant upon the respondent. She used to talk in very filthy language and that also caused mental torture for the respondent. The respondent was abused by the appellant and she refused to have any relation with the respondent. It is also submitted that the appellant clearly admitted that she gave birth to child and when there was no physical relation of respondent with the appellant then the presumption was rightly drawn by the Court below that the appellant is living adulterous life. The Court below rightly held that the appellant deserted the respondent the caused cruelty. 13. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the first issue is whether the appellant lived an adulterous life. For this, only ground given by the Court below is that the appellant gave birth to child and she failed to established that child was of respondent No. 1 her husband. The trial Court also held that the respondent failed to establish the allegation of illicit relation of Megha Ram and Deva Ram with the appellant. In the divorce petition, there is specific allegation that the appellant’s physical relations were with Megha Ram and Deva Ram and the respondent’s relatives, in the year 1982, saw the appellant in a compromising position with Megha Ram. There is no allegation in the divorce petition that who those persons were, who saw the appellant with Megha Ram. However, the trial Court rightly held that the applicant-respondent failed to prove the physical relationship of appellant with Megha Ram and Deva Ram, then there are only vague allegation that appellant’s character was not good. For that fact, the respondent himself is not a good witness because he never saw the appellant with any other person at any point of time. The other witnesses also are not the witnesses to any wrong act of the appellant, rather say they have also no knowledge about any specific incident from which they can say that the appellant was living adulterous life. In addition to above, it is not disclosed by the applicant that from when the appellant has started living adulterous live. The other witnesses also are not the witnesses to any wrong act of the appellant, rather say they have also no knowledge about any specific incident from which they can say that the appellant was living adulterous life. In addition to above, it is not disclosed by the applicant that from when the appellant has started living adulterous live. Admittedly, from at least 1975 to 1985, the appellant used to come to the house of the respondent-husband and till 1990, there is no allegation of about living adulterous life because the allegations have been levelled in the divorce petition filed in the year 1990 which was filed after the appellant’s filing petition for getting the maintenance from the husband. The trial Court’s finding is based only on assumption and that too because of the reason that in the opinion of the trial Court, information of birth of appellant’s child was not conveyed to the family of the respondent-husband and since the appellant’s cousin brother has shown his ignorance about the pregnancy of the appellant and delivery of the child by the appellant. The finding cannot be sustained because of the simple reason that it was not the case put forward by the respondent-applicant to the appellant in her cross-examination or to any other witness of the appellant. The appellant and her witnesses were never asked any question that the respondent’s family members were not informed about the birth of child to appellant. The allegation of adulterous life cannot be presumed on the basis of such facts and wild allegation particularly in a case where the appellant and respondent lived as husband and wife since 1971 to at least 1985 and it is admitted case that some time the appellant lived in the house of the respondent during this period. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 3 deserves to be set aside and hence set aside and it is held that the respondent failed to prove issue No. 3. 14. The trial Court held that the appellant deserted the respondent. From the evidence, it appears that the appellant could not plead and prove reasons for her withdrawing from the society of the respondent. 14. The trial Court held that the appellant deserted the respondent. From the evidence, it appears that the appellant could not plead and prove reasons for her withdrawing from the society of the respondent. The allegations of cruelty upon the appellant levelled in reply to the divorce petition are vague one and the respondent failed to prove any specific instance of cruelty which is clear from the evidence of the respondent herself as well as her witnesses. After initial discharge of burden by the husband about desertion by wife/non-applicant, it was the duty of the appellant-non-applicant to disclose the reasons and prove those reasons by evidence. 15. In view of the above the trial Court’s finding about desertion by the appellant is based on appreciation of evidence of both the parties and I do not find any illegality in that finding. In the same way, for cruelty, there are allegations and counter allegations but for the purpose of decision of this appeal, it is suffice to say that admittedly the appellant and respondent are living separate since 1985 and more than 20 years have passed, therefore, the relation of the appellant and respondent reached to irretrievable broke down stage and, therefore, also there is also no justification for the Appellate Court to interfere in the order passed in the divorce petition passed by the Court below which now remains on the ground of desertion and cruely only. 16. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. No order as to costs. * * * * *