JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. In spite of several attempts made by this Court for the purpose of reconciliation, as required under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, no reconciliation could be possible because of non-appearance of the Appellant-wife, in spite of granting several adjournments for that purpose and therefore, we proceeded to hear the appeal on merit though the learned Counsel for the Appellant-wife again made a prayer for adjournment today for the personal appearance of the Appellant-wife. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.5.20.03 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong in divorce suit No. 4(1) 2001 filed by the Respondent-husband decreeing the suit, granting divorce, on the ground of desertion. 3. An application under Section 13(1)(i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the Respondent-husband praying for a decree of divorce against the Appellant-wife on the ground of desertion and cruelty stating, inter alia, that the marriage between them was solemnized on 29.4.1996 and they lived together as husband and wife for a short period of 4 months time and thereafter the Appellant-wife left her matrimonial house and never came back in spite of several attempts made by him. Though notices were issued, the Appellant-wife did not contest the said proceeding and thereafter, an order was passed by the learned trial Court to proceed with the said suit ex parte. 4. However, the Appellant-wife subsequently on 28.5.2002 and 29.3.2003 filed two applications before the learned trial Court challenging the jurisdiction of the said Court on the ground that neither the marriage was solemnized nor they reside together within the jurisdiction of the said Court. The said applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.10.2002. The Appellant-wife in the said proceeding has also not filed any written statement denying the statement of the Plaintiff-husband in the said proceeding. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record and also the deposition of the witnesses i.e. PW 1, the husband, PW 2, the father of PW 1 and PW 3, namely, S.R. Saikia has come to the definite finding that the Plaintiff was deserted by the wife. It was also found by the learned trial court that the wife is gainfully employed as she has been running a Compute Centre at Bihar i.e. at her native place. It was also found by the learned trial court that the wife is gainfully employed as she has been running a Compute Centre at Bihar i.e. at her native place. The said witnesses were never cross-examined by the Appellant-wife and therefore, the statements of the witnesses remained unrebutted. 5. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-wife has submitted that the decree passed by the learned trial court is required to be interfered with as even on the unrebutted evidence on record, no ground of desertion has been made out so as to pass a decree of divorce. The learned Counsel has further submitted that at least the Appellant is entitled to the permanent alimony though no application has been filed by her before the learned trial Court in that respect. 6. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-husband, on the other hand, has submitted that the learned trial Court upon marshalling the evidence on record including the documents exhibited as well as the depositions of the PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 has come to the clear finding that the Plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and therefore, the said decree was rightly passed by the learned Court below. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties as well as perused the evidence on record both oral and documentary. It is evident from the depositions of PW 1 and PW 2 that the Appellant-wife left for her native place in Bihar after marriage in the month of July, 1996 and though several attempts were made by the Respondent-husband she did not return to the husband's place. 8. Upon perusal of the evidence on record, we are of the view that a clear case of desertion has been made out so as to get a decree of divorce and therefore, in our considered opinion, the decree of divorce was rightly passed by the learned trial Court dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of desertion. 9. Though the learned trial Court discussed the evidence on the ground of cruelty, no finding has been recorded in that respect. 9. Though the learned trial Court discussed the evidence on the ground of cruelty, no finding has been recorded in that respect. Since no finding has been recorded on such ground of cruelty and no cross appeal has also been filed by the husband-Respondent, we are not entering into the issue relating to the cruelty in the present appeal. 10. Before parting, we would like to observe that the learned trial Court has already made an observation in the judgment under appeal that no prayer for maintenance has been made by the Appellant-wife and it would be open for the Appellant-wife to claim for permanent alimony so long she remains unmarried and does not have any independent income. Therefore, the Appellant-wife may initiate separate proceeding, if she is so advised, for getting permanent alimony under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act in which event, the matter shall be considered by the, learned trial Court on its own merit. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The decree passed by the leaned trial Court is herby affirmed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed