ORDER : 1. We have asked learned counsel for the appellant as to whether appellant is in touch with the lawyer for the reason we find repeated orders passed requiring parties to be present but to no avail. 2. The reason is obvious. Appeal filed in the year 2008 came to be listed as per its priority position for hearing on January 2017 and thereafter on various dates where the order records that parties should be present so that the court could ascertain the latest position, but none appeared. 3. Wife’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 has been dismissed. Petition filed by the husband for divorce on ground of cruelty and desertion has been decreed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he is just not in touch with the appellant in spite of communication sent. We find that the appeals were filed by one Dinesh Singh, Advocate. Learned counsel states that he contacted Mr. Dinesh Singh, who also informed him that in spite of letter sent the appellant is not in contact. 5. The evidence shows that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 10th February 1996. Evidence establishes that on 10th February 1996 appellant’s father came to her matrimonial house so that she could visit her parental house, probably there may be some custom to celebrate. Evidence suggests that there was no cohabitation between the couple. 6. Appellant’s version that she had to leave the matrimonial house in October 2000, has been disbelieved. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any serious infirmity in the view taken by the learned Judge regarding dismissing appellant’s application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and decreeing the application filed by the husband for divorce on ground of cruelty and desertion. 8. We find that the learned Judge has elaborately dealt with the evidence. As regards dismissal of application filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 the view is correct. It is a provision for a wife who lives separately from the husband and not for a wife who is divorced. The appellant did not seek permanent alimony as contemplated by section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The three appeal are dismissed. No cost.