Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under Section 28 of Hindu marriage Act, 1955 filed by the appellant/wife against the decree of divorce passed against her by Vth Additional District judge, Rewa in Civil Suit No. 54-A/95 vide judgment dated 26. 9. 96. ( 2. ) IT was not disputed in the case that the appellant was married to the respondent at Jabalpur in the year 1981 according to Hindu rites and customs and they lived together as husband and wife. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT/husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant/wife before District Judge, Rewa on 17. 6. 91. As per allegations made in the petition, respondent and appellant lived as husband and wife for a period of two and half years at jabalpur, Shahdol and Rewa. They last resided as husband and wife at village Kuthaliya, District Rewa till August 1984, when the appellant/wife eloped with her friend Anwar Khan in the month of August 1984. Respondent/husband made unsuccessful attempts to bring her back, but the wife never returned back to live with the respondent/husband. ( 4. ) ACCORDING to respondent, in the year 1982, when he was employed in Umariya, District Shahdol in the Electricity board, he stayed with the appellant in a rented house of Anwar khan; Respondent/husband had to remain out during the week and he used to come home only on Sunday or holidays. In July 1984, respondent on coming back to his house found that the room was bolted from inside and his wife/appellant was lying with Anwar in objectionable position. As per allegations made by the respondent, appellant also had illicit relations with one ramkhilavan and she was also seen lying with Ramkhilavan in objectionable position. Respondent then scolded his wife and took her to his parental home to Khuthaliya, District Rewa and lived there till August 1984. On 30th August 1984 respondent came to know that his wife/appellant had eloped with Anwar khan and thereafter she lived with him for a long time having illicit relations with him. Afterwards, in the year 1985 she came back to Jabalpur to her parents and started working in a hotel and had illicit relations with the hotel owner, Jagdish. On 30th August 1984 respondent came to know that his wife/appellant had eloped with Anwar khan and thereafter she lived with him for a long time having illicit relations with him. Afterwards, in the year 1985 she came back to Jabalpur to her parents and started working in a hotel and had illicit relations with the hotel owner, Jagdish. Appellant thus continued to live in adultery and deprived the respondent of conjugal rights and deserted him continuously for seven years without any reasonable cause. Respondent/husband was therefore, constrained to file a petition for divorce against the appellant, as it had become impossible for him to live with the appellant/wife. ( 5. ) THE petition for divorce was opposed by the appellant/wife. She denied all the allegations made in the divorce petition by way of written statement filed before trial court. According to appellant/wife, she always fulfilled her marital obligations. She never knew Anwar Khan and false allegations of adultery were levelled against her. In fact, a son named Arun Kumar Sondhiya was born to her out of wedlock with the respondent/husband. Actually, respondent/husband himself wanted to perform another marriage and therefore, he made false allegations against her so as to obtain divorce. Respondent/husband had never called her back; appellant had lived with the respondent till Nov. 1990 and thereafter she came to her parental house and was never called back by the respondent. She was still willing to live with the respondent/husband and divorce petition deserved to be dismissed. ( 6. ) ON the above pleadings, the trial court framed various issue and parties went to trial and adduced their evidence. ( 7. ) THE trial court, after analysis of the evidence adduced in the case held that the appellant/wife had deserted the respondent/ husband without any reasonable cause since august 1984 and after her marriage with the respondent she had illicit relations with other persons and had voluntary sexual intercourse with certain other persons, therefore, granted a decree of divorce against the appellant under Section 13 of hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse and hypothetical and the decree of divorce passed on such findings cannot be sustained. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the Court below are perverse and hypothetical and the decree of divorce passed on such findings cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that there was no legal evidence that after solemnization of marriage with the respondent, appellant voluntarily had sexual intercourse with any person other than the respondent and the learned trial judge has drawn such conclusion on insufficient and slender evidence without there being proper facts and evidence on record. ( 9. ) WE have gone through the record of the case. The main and substantial evidence on record is the evidence of respondent Shiv Sharan (P. W-4), the appellant (D. W-1) herself and her father Mathura Prasad (D. W-2), besides there being supportive evidence of Rajkamal Sonkar (P. W-1), Anusuiya (P. W-2) and Mamta (P. W-3) examined by the respondent/husband. ( 10. ) RESPONDENT Shiv Sharan (P. W-4) categorically deposed in his evidence that the appellant left her matrimonial home at village Kuthaliya, District Rewa in August 1985 when she eloped with his landlord Anwar Khan and did not come back. Respondent Shiv Sharan (P. W-4) also deposed in para 8 of his deposition that he had gone to call her back last in the year 1988 from her fathers house, but appellant/wife refused to come with him. ( 11. ) APPELLANT Laxmi (D. W-1) also categorically admitted in her evidence during cross-examination that she had been living separately from her husband/respondent for last 10-12 years, though she said that when she had separated herself from her husband, respondent had made allegations against her character and refused to keep her. Yet she admitted that she never made any efforts to live with the respondent, nor she had any recourse to legal action against him. Mathura Prasad (D. W-2), the father of the appellant, also fortified this fact that appellant had been living separately from her husband for eight years since respondent left her at his place. Mathura Prasad (D. W-2), however, also admitted that he did not take any recourse to legal action to send back his daughter to the respondent/husband. Mathura Prasad (D. W-2), the father of the appellant, also fortified this fact that appellant had been living separately from her husband for eight years since respondent left her at his place. Mathura Prasad (D. W-2), however, also admitted that he did not take any recourse to legal action to send back his daughter to the respondent/husband. In view of these facts that the appellant never made any efforts to go back to her husband and did not take any recourse to legal action against respondent for restitution of conjugal rights, the statement of the appellant (D. W-1) and her father, Mathura Prasad (D. W-2) that the respondent had left her at her fathers place or deserted her, is not acceptable. ( 12. ) ON the other hand, it is clearly deducible from the evidence of both the parties that appellant has been living separately from her husband/respondent without any reasonable cause for a long span of time, which is certainly more than two years preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce by the respondent against the appellant. Thus, it was clearly established that the appellant had deserted the petitioner for continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce against her. A ground under Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu marriage Act, 1955 was thus proved against the appellant. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court in this behalf after evaluation of the evidence on record cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous. ( 13. ) ACCORDING to appellant Laxmi (D. W-1), she had been residing separately from her husband for last 10-12 years. She also admitted that she did not meet her husband or had any access to him since she became separate from him. However, she disclosed in para 9 of her deposition that she had a child aged about eight years. Her father Mathura Prasad (D. W-2)also deposed that the respondent had left her daughter at her house about eight years back and presently her daughter had a child of about five years of age. However, she disclosed in para 9 of her deposition that she had a child aged about eight years. Her father Mathura Prasad (D. W-2)also deposed that the respondent had left her daughter at her house about eight years back and presently her daughter had a child of about five years of age. In view of the aforesaid, when the appellant was admittedly not residing with the respondent for last 10-12 years and did not have any access to her husband, and yet had a child aged five or eight years, it was sufficient to lend credence to the statement made by respondent Shiv Sharan (P. W-4) that appellant had illicit relations with number of persons like Anwar Khan, Jagdish and ramkhilavan. Respondent Shiv Sharan (P. W-4) also deposed in his evidence that he had seen the appellant and her landlord anwar Khan lying in a room in nude position and afterward she was residing with one Jagdish at Jabalpur, which is also evident from the testimony of Mamta (P. W-3) and other supportive evidence led by the respondent. The finding arrived at by the court below in the aforesaid circumstances, as appearing from the evidence on record, that appellant had voluntary sexual intercourse with persons other than the respondent, also does not seem to be perverse or hypothetical. It is held in catena of decisions that the direct proof of adultery is hardly available and the circumstantial evidence given in the case may lead to conclusion that the allegations of adultery are sustainable. ( 14. ) MOREOVER, even if the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, for arguments sake, that the ground under Section 13 (1) (i) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 relating to adultery was not duly proved, the ground of desertion as envisaged under Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu marriage Act, 1955, as stated above, has been found to be duly proved. ( 15. ) IT also transpires from the evidence led by the parties that they have been living separately over considerable length of time, which also indicates that their marriage has broken down. In view of the facts, as highlighted from the evidence on record, that appellant has also been living with other persons, it can well be assumed that the matrimonial bond between the parties cannot be repaired. In view of the facts, as highlighted from the evidence on record, that appellant has also been living with other persons, it can well be assumed that the matrimonial bond between the parties cannot be repaired. In these circumstances, the statement made by the appellant/wife that she is willing to live with the respondent cannot be believed, particularly when she has admittedly been living separately from her husband for 10-12 years without making any endeavour to revive her matrimonial tie with the respondent. Thus, it appears that there has been irretrievable break down of their marriage. ( 16. ) THE Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli reported in 2006 (3) MPLJ page 1 para 72 has observed as under:- "once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken down. The court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavour to reconcile the parties; yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties. " ( 17. ) THUS, in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when a ground of divorce as envisaged under section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is duly proved against the appellant, the impugned decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent does not call for any interference. ( 18. ) APPEAL, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Counsel fee at Rs. 1000/-, if certified. Decree be drawn up accordingly.