Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is preferred by the plaintiff under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1956, (in short the Act) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12. 5. 2000 passed by Ilnd, Add. District Judge, bhopal in Regular Civil Suit No. 47-A/99 dismissing her application filed against the respondent under Section (13) (1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Act for decree of divorce. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the appellant got married with the respondent on dated 24. 11. 1995 as per rites and ritual of the Hindu community. Thereafter she resided in the matrimonial home with the respondent and performed her pious duties as wife. A huge amount was spent by her parents in the marriage as mentioned in the petition. As per further pleadings from the very beginning of the marriage the behaviour of the respondent with her was remained very cruel and on various occasions she was beaten with abuses by him, stating that he does not have any relation with her. She was not provided proper food in the matrimonial home. As per further averments on demand of the respondent on second day of the marriage Rs. 20,000/- was given by her parents to him in respect of the expenses to get the posting order of Law Officer in some Government Department. The same was never returned. In the year 1997 she was intimated by the father of the respondent taking away her articles from the matrimonial home. In response of it she brought the same in the month of June 1998. On account of the cruel treatment of the respondent she is residing with her parents since 2nd March 1996. Subsequent to it respondent neither took her care nor paid any expenses for livelihood or the maintenance. In addition it is pleaded that the appellant being a clever person is having some affairs with a girl and wants to reside with her, that is why he has deserted the appellant. In this regard she gave a notice to the respondent. The same was replied with false averments stating that the respondent does not want to keep her with him. In this regard she gave a notice to the respondent. The same was replied with false averments stating that the respondent does not want to keep her with him. In such premises, the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion alongwith the prayer directing the respondent to return her Shtridhan articles and pay the the permanent alimony was filed. ( 3. ) IN written statement of the respondent by denying the averments of the petition, it is stated, that the appellant being in service of Central School, hoshangabad is earning Rs. 8,000/- per month and she used to spend the same on her parents and the sister and under their pressure and influence the petition is preferred on the false averments. She is residing at her service place on her own wish. It is also pleaded that he was forced by the appellant to live at Bhopal with her parents. But the same was not possible for him in the family circumstance as after demise of his brother no other competent person was in the family to look after his old aged parents. Inspite it under pressure of the appellant he went and reside with her for some time but she herself was not interested to reside with him. In such premises, they could not reside together. He has been deprived by the appellant from the enjoyment of marital life. In order to bring the appellant on various occasions he went to her service place but there he was insulted by her and the members of her parental family. Thereafter, on false averments this petition has been filed. In such premises, the prayer for dismissal of the petition is made. ( 4. ) AFTER framing the issues the evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the same the petition of the appellant was dismissed by the trial court holding that she has failed to prove the grounds of divorce stated in the petition. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree of the trial court the appellant has come forward to this court with the prayer to allow her petition of divorce by allowing this appeal. ( 5. ) SHRI A. M. Trivedi, learned Sr. Being aggrieved by such judgment and decree of the trial court the appellant has come forward to this court with the prayer to allow her petition of divorce by allowing this appeal. ( 5. ) SHRI A. M. Trivedi, learned Sr. Adv assisted by Shri D. K. Mishra by referring the pleadings of the petition said that the ground of cruelty as well as desertion for getting the decree of divorce are specifically pleaded by the appellant. Besides this the prayer for returning the Stridhan articles and permanent alimony are also made in the petition. At trial in support of the aforesaid pleadings the appellant has recorded her own deposition by stating all relevant facts. The same is further supported by her father. Their testimonies were not challenged on behalf of the respondent in any manner. The same being unrebutted evidence there was no occasion before the trial court to discard the same but contrary to it her petition has been dismissed by the trial court. He further said that it is apparent and undisputed fact on record that the parties are residing separately since 14. 6. 1998, i. e. more than ten years. Virtually in such circumstances there is no chance to reconcile the marital relations between them as such there marital relationship have become dead mentally and practically both. In such premises, there is no chance between the party to reconcile the matter. In such circumstances the decree of divorce ought to have been passed by the trial court but contrary to it the petition has been dismissed. In support of this contention he placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jayu Ghosha reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 and prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree with allowing her petition for divorce by allowing the appeal. ( 6. ) SHRI K. S. Baghel, learned counsel of the respondent while responding the aforesaid arguments by referring the pleadings and said that in the lack of specific proper pleadings in the petition with particulars regarding grounds of divorce, merely on the basis of deposition of the appellant and her witness the decree of divorce could not be passed as there is settled proposition of law that in the lack of pleadings the evidence even if adduced can not be looked into. According to him the requisites particulars for the alleged ground are not pleaded in the petition. He fairly conceded that in spite filing the written statement, the witnesses of the appellant were neither cross examined on behalf of the respondent nor any evidence was adduced by him in the rebuttal but according to him the evidence adduced by the appellant was neither sufficient nor conclusive to draw any inference against the respondent for allowing the petition. In such premises, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the petition of the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 7. ) HAVING heard the counsel, in order to consider the rival contention of the parties, I have carefully examined the record and also perused the impugned judgment. In petition of the appellant the ground of cruelty and desertion are specifically pleaded and in support of the same the elaborate evidence has been adduced at trial by the appellant. As per settled proposition the material facts are required to be pleaded and not the evidence. The facts pleaded by the the appellant are denied by the respondent in his written statement, on recording the deposition of appellant, she has neither been cross examined by the respondent nor any evidence in support of the objection taken in the written statement was adduced by him. It is settled proposition of law that mere pleadings of the parties are not sufficient to draw any inference unless the same is supported by adducing the evidence, hence it is held that in the lack of ocular evidence the respondent was not entitled to get any relief merely on the basis of pleadings of his written statements. ( 8. ) NOW coming to consider the ground of cruelty is concerned, in the deposition of the appellant Smt. Kanta Raikwar (AW-1), she categorically stated that she got married with the respondent on dated 24. 11. 1995. As per further deposition some cash amount, ornaments, other articles and gifts were given to her by the parental family on the different occasions and the ceremonies of the marriage. 11. 1995. As per further deposition some cash amount, ornaments, other articles and gifts were given to her by the parental family on the different occasions and the ceremonies of the marriage. In order to prove the ground of cruelty she categorically stated in para 8 and 9 of her deposition that since the time of marriage the behaviour of the respondent with her was very cruel and she was subjected to physical and mental harassment with abuses and beating in the matrimonial home. On some occasion, she was also dragged during the course of beating. The proper food was not given to her while residing in matrimonial home. She was kept hungry by tiding her limb. She further deposed that the respondent used to perform the intercourse with her with cruel manner by tiding her limbs. She was also used by the respondent to satisfy his unnatural lust and on some occasions she was compelled to take the penis of respondent in her mouth, on account of which she suffered with vomiting and could rot the her meals for three - four days. Accordingly, the description of cruelty was explained by her. ( 9. ) HER father Ganpatlal Raikwar (AW-2) whom she stated the aforesaid Act of respondent also deposed the same in para 4 of his deposition. Such testimonies have not been rebutted either by cross examination or adducing the evidence on behaif of the respondent. In such situation the court has no option except to hold that the respondent in order to satisfy his unnatural lust committed cruelty with the appellant in the aforesaid manner. In such premises, it is held that the ground of cruelty has been proved by the appellant with all probability but the trial court has committed grave error in drawing the inference against her. Such findings of the impugned judgment being contrary to record is not sustainable. Hence the same is hereby set aside. ( 10. ) SO far ground of desertion is concerned as per available record and the evidence the appellant was deserted by the respondent on 2. 3. 1996. Since then she is residing with her parents. During this period the respondent neither took her care nor paid any sum for her livelihood. The appellant Smt. Kanta Raikwar (AW-1) categorically deposed in para 7 of her deposition that she had been deserted by the respondent on 2. 3. 1996. 3. 1996. Since then she is residing with her parents. During this period the respondent neither took her care nor paid any sum for her livelihood. The appellant Smt. Kanta Raikwar (AW-1) categorically deposed in para 7 of her deposition that she had been deserted by the respondent on 2. 3. 1996. Since then she is residing at Bhopal with her parents. Since the date of desertion no physical and marital relation took place between her and the respondent. Accordingly, the desertion has also been proved by the appellant and there is no circumstance to discard her in this regard. As the same has neither been challenged by cross examining her or adducing any evidence in its rebuttal. Her testimony is further supported by her father Shri ganpat Lai Ahirwar (AW-2) who categorically stated that the appellant is residing with her from March 1996. Since then no meeting took place in any manner between her and the respondent and no one has turned up to his home from the family of respondent to bring the appellant. Such testimony is also unrebutted as he was also not cross examined on behalf of the respondent. In such premises, there is sufficient evidence to draw the inference that the appellant after deserting her by the respondent on 2nd March 1996 is residing with her parents and no cohabitation took place between them. I have not found any sufficient cause for desertion of the appellant by the respondent. In such situation it is held that the appellant has been deserted by the respondent without any sufficient cause since 2nd March 1996. Apart the above, in the available circumstances as discussed above, it is apparent that since March 1996 the parties are residing separately. Since then no cohabitation took place between them and looking to the allegation alleged and proved by the appellant against the respondent regarding cruelty and desertion are sufficient circumstance to draw an inference that the matrimonial relationship between the parties has been raptured beyond repair because of the act of respondent. In such premises, such act of the respondent could be held to be a mental cruelty against the respondent which could be a foundation for desertion of marriage as observed by the Apex Court in the matter of SAMAR ghosh Vs. JAYA GHOSH reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 as under: - "101. In such premises, such act of the respondent could be held to be a mental cruelty against the respondent which could be a foundation for desertion of marriage as observed by the Apex Court in the matter of SAMAR ghosh Vs. JAYA GHOSH reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511 as under: - "101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of mental cruelty. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (v ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (v ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one \ spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (viii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ix ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (xii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (xiii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. 102. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty. 102. When we take into consideration aforementioned factors along with an important circumstance that the parties are admittedly living separately for more than sixteen and half years (since 27. 8. 1990) the irresistible conclusion would be that matrimonial bond has been ruptured beyond repair because of the mental cruelty caused by the respondent. " ( 11. ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion of the facts of the case at hand, the guidelines provided by the Apex Court in cited case is helping to the appellant to draw inference that the respondent has committed mental cruelty with her and in such premises also the appellant deserves for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. ( 12. ) ACCORDING to the pleadings of herself the Shtridhan articles were brought by her from matrimonial home on receiving the letter dated 14. 6. 1998 from the father of the respondent. Besides this I have not found any evidence or the circumstance showing that any such article is laying with the respondent. Hence, it is held that the prayer of the appellant in this regard has been rightly refused by the trial court. So far awarding the permanent alimony is concerned, the appellant being in service of Central School had sufficient source of income. Thus, she does not deserve for any permanent alimony. In such premises, the appellant was rightly refused by the trial court. ( 13. ) UNDER the aforesaid premises it is held that the trial court has committed grave error and perversity in dismissing the petition of the appellant. ( 14. ) THEREFORE, this appeal is allowed in part and by setting aside the findings of the impugned judgment and decree given in respect of the grounds of dissolution of marriage and the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 (i) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion is allowed. In pursuance of it, the marriage solemnized between the parties on dated 24. 11. In pursuance of it, the marriage solemnized between the parties on dated 24. 11. 1995 is hereby dissolved and decree of divorce is ordered, while the other findings of the same regarding permanent alimony and returning the Shtridhan property is hereby affirmed. The respondent shall bear his cost and pay the cost of appellant throughout. The cost of this appeal is quantified at Rs. 7,500/ -. The decree be drawn up accordingly. Appeal allowed in part.