JUDGMENT : Sambre, J. This appeal is by the original respondent. 2. The respondent to present appeal Rajendra was married to appellant at Nagpur on 22nd January, 1995 and are blessed with a daughter by name Neha. 3. The respondent, an operator by profession, claimed to have started residing at Dewas and then shifted to Pandhurna. 4. After the marriage was conceived and the appellant was pregnant, the respondent-husband dropped her at her parental house. On 23rd November, 1995, daughter Neha was born. 5. It was the case of the respondent that after the birth of daughter, they started residing in joint family at Pandhurna along with the parents of the respondent. The present appellant-wife used to take up unnecessary quarrel with his parents and sister and there was insistence on the part of the appellant to have a separate house. 6. It is further claimed that in the marriage of brother of the present appellant, the respondent was not invited. However, his sister Kunda, who attended the said marriage, requested the appellant to return back to maternal home, but the appellant refused. It is further claimed that on subsequent attempt by respondent to the parental house of appellant-wife so as to bring her back for cohabitation was rejected and such similar attempts for about 4-5 times were also futile. 7. The counseling at Pandhurna in the year 2006 in the backdrop of communications dated 19th July, 2006 and 14th August, 2006, were not responded to. As such the proceedings were initiated by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights at Family Court, Chhindwada, being Proceeding No. A-159/2006, which were decreed in favour of respondent against the appellant on 23rd June, 2008. 8. In spite of above, since appellant has not joined the company of the respondent-husband, the divorce proceedings were initiated bearing No. A-367/2009 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chhindwada. However, without adjudication, the same was dismissed in default. As a consequence, the respondent initiated Petition No. A-414/2011 under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) and (1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage. 9. The said proceedings were resisted by the appellant-wife, as it was claimed that she had no knowledge about the alleged decree for restitution of conjugal right. According to her, she was ready and willing to stay with the respondent-husband. According to her, she never deserted the respondent. 10. 9. The said proceedings were resisted by the appellant-wife, as it was claimed that she had no knowledge about the alleged decree for restitution of conjugal right. According to her, she was ready and willing to stay with the respondent-husband. According to her, she never deserted the respondent. 10. The learned Family Court framed the issues for consideration at Exh.16 and after appreciating the factual matrix and evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 19th January, 2015, ordered dissolution of marriage. As such, this appeal. 11. Smt. Deshpande, learned counsel for appellant-wife raised following substantial questions of law. A. Whether the Family Court committed an error in passing a decree of dissolution of marriage in a given set of facts and circumstances? B. Once the proceedings for divorce were dismissed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chhindwada, whether the present proceedings are maintainable? 12. So as to substantiate her claim, she has invited attention of this Court to reference made to dismissal of divorce proceedings in Para 11 of the impugned judgment. According to her, the alleged decree of dismissal of divorce petition bearing No. 367 of 2009 would operate res-judicata. She has further claimed that it is not established by the respondent that the decree for restitution of conjugal right was within the knowledge of the present appellant. 13. With the assistance of the respective counsel, we have perused the material which is made available on record, so also the evidence adduced by the respective parties in the present proceedings. We have also perused the record and proceedings of the case in hand. 14. With the assistance, we have perused the judgment dated 23rd June, 2008, in the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights. The fact remains that the appellant remained absent in the said proceedings in spite of service of notice. 15. In the evidence of Kunda who was examined by the respondent in support of the case for dissolution of marriage, it has come on record that there were efforts for conciliation. It has also been brought on record regarding decree for divorce in her evidence. 16. In her cross examination, she has deposed that she had been to the house of the present appellant so as to bring back the appellant for cohabitation. The evidence of Jaishri, the appellant is at Exh.31. It has also been brought on record regarding decree for divorce in her evidence. 16. In her cross examination, she has deposed that she had been to the house of the present appellant so as to bring back the appellant for cohabitation. The evidence of Jaishri, the appellant is at Exh.31. She has tried to establish about the absence of knowledge about the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In her cross examination, she admitted that she has attended about 10 times the said proceedings under Section 9 of the said Act. She has also denied the suggestion that she has not resumed the cohabitation. She in categorical terms admitted that there are no relations of husband-wife since last about 18 years. 17. As such, from the aforesaid evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the appellant and the respondent are not residing together for more than last 20 years. His earlier proceeding for dissolution of marriage presented before the Court at Chhindwada was also dismissed in default and not on merits of the matter. 18. Once the said proceedings were dismissed in default, in absence of any adjudication of the rival claim of the parties on merits, it is difficult to accept that the said dismissal will operate against the interest of the respondent while claiming the present decree for dissolution of marriage. 19. Apart from above, the Family Court so also this Court upon appreciation of evidence, having noticed that in spite of decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the appellant has not started cohabitation with the respondent, rather appellant herself has kept away from the company of the respondent for more than 20 years. 20. That being so, in our opinion, no case for showing any indulgence in appellate jurisdiction is made out. The appeal as such fails. The same stands dismissed.