JUDGMENT : S.K. Palo, J. The appellant-wife feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 30-8-2008, pronounced by First ADJ, Seoni in Civil Suit No. 4A/2005 whereby the application under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-husband was allowed and the marriage between the appellant and respondent solemnized on 24-5-2001 has been dissolved, preferred this appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity Act, 1955). 2. It is not disputed that the appellant and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 24-5-2001. Due to this wedlock, a male child was born to the appellant. The respondent issued a notice to the appellant for restitution of conjugal right. The respondent then instituted Civil Suit No. 6A/2002 in which a finding was given by the Court in favour of the respondent hat the appellant-wife deserted respondent-husband without any sufficient cause, however, the civil suit was dismissed. It is also not disputed that the appellant-wife has filed a criminal case before JMFC, Chhindwara under section 406, Indian Penal Code read with sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is yet to be decided. 3. The learned trial Court after gone through the pleadings and evidence observed that after her marriage, the appellant-wife pressurized respondent-husband to live separately from his family. When the respondent-husband denied the same, the appellant-wife stopped doing domestic work and started sleeping separately. The appellant-wife also got herself transferred from village Linga, Distt. Chhindwara to Seoni. The appellant-wife treated the respondent-husband with cruelty and deserted the respondent-husband from 7-10-2010. The trial Court, under section 13(1)(i-a), and 13(1)(i-b) Act, 1955 granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband. 4. In the present case, the appellant-wife has assailed the judgment under section 28 of the Act, 1955 on the ground that the finding of the trial Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to law and contrary to evidence available on record. It is also claimed that the respondent-husband and his family members treated her with cruelty. They harassed and tortured her and compelled her to bring dowry from her parent's house. No remedy left with the wile, except to leave Chhindwara and for that she cannot be held responsible for deserting the husband. On the other hand, it is the husband who is responsible for the said desertion. They harassed and tortured her and compelled her to bring dowry from her parent's house. No remedy left with the wile, except to leave Chhindwara and for that she cannot be held responsible for deserting the husband. On the other hand, it is the husband who is responsible for the said desertion. The husband himself is responsible for the estrangement and separation of the parties, therefore, he cannot take advantage of the same. The learned trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence in this regard, hence, the impugned judgment be set aside. 5. During the course of arguments, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court also erred in appreciating the evidence that, for the treatment of their child, they had gone to Emakulam (Kerala). In between 22-7-2004 to 5-8-2004, they stayed in the same hotel room and cohabited, therefore, the petition on the ground of desertion is liable to he dismissed for the simple reason that the petition was filed on 4-1-2006 and the husband and wife stayed and cohabited within the period of two years immediately preceding presentation of the divorce petition. He placed reliance on Malathi Ravi, M. D. v. B. V. Ravi, M. D., reported as 2015(1) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 53 = (2014) 7SCC 640, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- "Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-b) - Desertion for continuous period of 2 yrs-Husband admitted to have once stayed with wife at wife's place for 2 days within period of 2 yrs immediately preceding presentation of divorce petition by him-Held, desertion not established." 6. Rebutting to the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent has submits that the learned trial Court after having gone through the evidence on record has pronounced the impugned judgment which calls for no interference, as it is based on the facts and evidence of the case. He pointed out that the marriage was solemnized on 24-5-2001. On 4 10-2001 the appellant-wife pressurized the respondent-husband to leave his mother and sister. When the respondent-husband not pay any heed to it, on 5-10-2001, she left her matrimonial home. Since then she has been living separately. The appellant-wife did not return to the matrimonial home and there was a finding in the Civil Suit No. 16A/2002 in this regard. On 4 10-2001 the appellant-wife pressurized the respondent-husband to leave his mother and sister. When the respondent-husband not pay any heed to it, on 5-10-2001, she left her matrimonial home. Since then she has been living separately. The appellant-wife did not return to the matrimonial home and there was a finding in the Civil Suit No. 16A/2002 in this regard. It is strongly contended that the appellant-wife also alleged demand of dowry and cruelty against the members of the family of respondent-husband in the criminal case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has acquitted the accused persons She has lodged a report of demand of dowry as well as she registered a criminal case under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent-husband which falls in the category of cruelty, therefore, the respondent-husband has succeeded in proving desertion as well as cruelty against the appellant-wife. 7. We have considered the contentions advanced by the appellant as well as respondent and gone through the material available on record. The parties are living separately since 2001. The appellant-wife claims that Alok Kumar, their only child was under treatment at Sure Tech Hospital, Nagpur, who was subsequently, taken to Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre. Emakulam Kerala for treatment by Dr. R. Krishna Kumar. The appellant-wife alleged that the respondent-husband stayed with her in a hotel room and they cohabitated. But this contention of the appellant-wife has been denied by the respondent-husband. In paragraph 46 to 49, the learned trial Court dealt with this issue and has opined that when the appellant's son was ill, both of them had gone for his treatment to Emakulam. At that time, having the background that parties have refused to live together, allowing the ill-child to stay with another person, staying as husband-wife in a hotel room is not reliably believed, specially when other members of the family were also present there for treatment of the child The reasons assigned by the learned trial Court is cogent. We cannot endorse another view in the circumstances prevailed in the case and the evidence available on record. 8. On the backdrop of the facts that the marriage is done for all the purposes and the husband and wife are living separately for almost about fifteen years. Despite many efforts by the husband for conciliation and for bringing the appellant-wife to the matrimonial home has failed. 8. On the backdrop of the facts that the marriage is done for all the purposes and the husband and wife are living separately for almost about fifteen years. Despite many efforts by the husband for conciliation and for bringing the appellant-wife to the matrimonial home has failed. We cannot overlook the fact at the appellant-wife did not turn up on 6-3-2006, 8-4-2006, 22-4-2006, 15-5-06 and 24-6-2006 despite the order of the Court for re-conciliation. On 21-6-2007, the respondent even agreed to go to the appellant's place to live with her, it the appellant-wife refused to live with the respondent-husband even at her maternal home. She pleaded, that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment to such a degree that she could not live with the husband. But she could not prove same. 9. In case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa, 2013(3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 567 : (2013) 5 SCC 226 Hon'ble he Apex Court has discussed a similar situation in le following words : "30. It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are staying apart from 27-4-1999, thus, they are living separately for more than ten years. This separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the two. As held in Samar Ghosh, if we refuse to saver the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty. 31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the Court have always taken irretrievable break-down of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage, which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the Court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the Court's decree" 10. Similar is the situation in the present case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that the conduct of appellant-wife has inflicted mental pain and suffering upon the respondent-husband. Similar is the situation in the present case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that the conduct of appellant-wife has inflicted mental pain and suffering upon the respondent-husband. In case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, reported as AIR 1994 SC 710 , the Apex Court has held that ¡°any conduct inflicts such mental pain and suffering one of the parties and is of such nature that the parties henceforth cannot possibly live together amounts to mental cruelty and under such circumstances the wrong party cannot reasonably to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party." 11. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the conclusion recorded by the trial Court about the conduct of the appellant-wife amounts to "cruelty" and her departure from the matrimonial home amounts to "desertion" under section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) Act, 1955. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 30-8-2008 does not suffer from any illegality or perversity or any material irregularity and does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. Be that as it may be, the appeal filed by the appellant-wife being merit-less deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.