JUDGMENT : M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J. Assailing the judgment rendered by the Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, dated 29.12.2021 in O.P. No.1283 of 2016, the present appeal is preferred by the wife, who is respondent therein. 2. By the impugned order, the Family Court allowed the O.P. filed by the husband, respondent herein, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage subsisting between the appellant and respondent dated 16.08.1998. 3. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to by their matrimonial status i.e., the appellant as ‘wife’ and the respondent as ‘husband’. 4. The facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the marriage of respondent-husband with the appellant-wife took place on 16.08.1998 at Andhra Youth Mandal, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, as per Hindu rites and customs. Right from the marriage, the wife did not behave properly with the inlaws as well as husband. As they are living in a joint family, the wife started demanding the husband to set up separate family and when the husband refused to set up separate family, she intensified the harassment. She expressed her inability to enjoy the conjugal life and that she is not interested in sexual life owing to her health conditions. When the matter was placed before elders, wife agreed to cooperate with the husband to conceive through IVF procedure. On 05.10.2006 a male child was born to the wife through IVF procedure. However, wife left the company of the husband without his consent in January, 2011, for which, her parents lodged a missing complaint and after two days, she reached the house of her parents. Later, at the instance of the wife, a case was registered against the husband and his parents with the Women Police Station. Though the husband set up a separate family in a rented premises, there was no change in the behavior of the wife. In September, 2011, in spite of having knowledge that her mother-in-law was hospitalized due to brain stroke and was in critical condition, the wife did not turn up and visited the hospital. Though the husband continued to live with the wife in a rented premises, there was no change in her attitude. In September, 2011, in spite of having knowledge that her mother-in-law was hospitalized due to brain stroke and was in critical condition, the wife did not turn up and visited the hospital. Though the husband continued to live with the wife in a rented premises, there was no change in her attitude. Finally, the wife left the company of the husband in July, 2014 and since then she did not join the matrimonial home. When the husband filed a case seeking dissolution of marriage in O.P. No. 1909 of 2014 before the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, the wife requested him to withdraw the same expressing her willingness to join his company and when he withdrew the said O.P. in February, 2015, again she left the company of husband and started to reside at her relative’s house by doing private job. In a panchayat held before the caste elders at Moosarambagh in July, 2014, the wife abused the husband and his parents and that no progress took place in that panchayat. Hence, the O.P. by the husband. 5. The wife contested the O.P. by filing counter denying the averments made in the O.P. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, the husband started demanding additional dowry to set up a business, for which, her brother arranged Rs.12.00 lakhs and another amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs on different occasions. When her brother requested for return of the said amount, the husband started quarreling and blaming the wife. Right from the marriage, the husband and his parents used to harass and abuse her without there being any reason. On the ground that she did not conceive, her in-laws continued to harass her. On 03.07.2003, when she was taken to IIRC Infertility centre at Secunderabad, the doctor opined that the couple has to go for IVF treatment on the ground of medical complication in both the parties. The husband and her in-laws demanded her parents to incur all the expenses for the IVF treatment. Eventually, she gave birth to a male child. In 2006, the husband and his parents forced her to get money from her parents and friends to meet the expenses of the under-construction house. Her father-in-law was making propaganda stating that she was not fit for sexual life. Eventually, she gave birth to a male child. In 2006, the husband and his parents forced her to get money from her parents and friends to meet the expenses of the under-construction house. Her father-in-law was making propaganda stating that she was not fit for sexual life. On 17.01.2011, as she objected for the proposed second marriage of the husband, a quarrel took place and she was necked out of the house along with her son. On 21.01.2018, she lodged a complaint with the Women Police Station at Saroornagar and after counseling, the husband took her back, set up a separate family and after staying for six months in a rented house, he left her and went to his parents place. It is the husband and her in-laws who did not allow her to stay in their house and therefore, she started residing at her aunt’s place along with her child. The husband filed a rejoinder stating that his mother fell sick due to paralysis and that his father is aged 72 years and not in a position to move and though he requested the wife to join his company, she refused to join his company. 6. Before the Court below, husband got examined himself as P.W. 1 apart from examining his friend as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. The wife got examined herself as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.9. The learned Family Court, considering the above said evidence, allowed the O.P. granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties solemnized on 16.08.1998 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Aggrieved thereby, the wife is before this Court by way of present appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Family Court erred in considering the entire evidence on record i.e., P.Ws.1 & 2 and D.W.1 by taking into consideration Exs.A.1 to A.5 & B.1 to B.9 and erroneously decreed the O.P. granting divorce. The Court below failed to appreciate the fact that there was no whisper about the alleged ill-health of the wife for more than 16 years of their marriage which fact has also been admitted by the husband in his cross-examination. The Court below failed to appreciate the fact that there was no whisper about the alleged ill-health of the wife for more than 16 years of their marriage which fact has also been admitted by the husband in his cross-examination. Further, the Court below failed to take note of the attitude of the husband who on earlier occasion filed O.P. No. 1909 of 2014 with similar relief, which was subsequently not pressed, was with a view to blackmail the wife to extract additional dowry from her family members. Moreover, even by the time of filing of the O.P., both the parties are residing in the same roof and therefore, there is no desertion of conjugal life by the wife. Although the husband sought for divorce on the ground of harassment and desertion, he has utterly failed to prove the said grounds and therefore, the learned Family Court ought not to have granted the decree of divorce. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to set aside the impugned order by dismissing the O.P. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-husband has contended that since the marriage has broken down beyond repair and as there is no possibility of reunion of couple owing to the ill-health of the wife, the learned Family Court has rightly granted decree of divorce and therefore, the said judgment needs no interference by this Court. 10. In the present case, the husband filed the O.P. seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife. To substantiate his stand, husband examined himself as P.W.1 apart from examining his friend as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. His evidence is to the effect that he filed O.P. No. 1909 of 2014 on earlier occasion seeking divorce; that the wife stayed with him till May, 2015; that a panchayat was held in July, 2015. P.W.2, a close friend of husband, deposed that he attended the panchayat meeting held at Moosarambagh; that Ex.B.4 is the decision taken in the panchayat; and that the earlier O.P. filed by the husband was compromised. P.W.2, a close friend of husband, deposed that he attended the panchayat meeting held at Moosarambagh; that Ex.B.4 is the decision taken in the panchayat; and that the earlier O.P. filed by the husband was compromised. The wife, as R.W.1, deposed that she donated her egg for IVF process; that at the time of infusion, both the parties were called by the doctor and were informed that they were also collecting egg from donors; that as the process could not succeed with the egg of the wife, the doctor went for donor’s egg for IVF process. She admitted to have undergone surgery before marriage for indigestion problem. Her stomach was reduced and diversion pipe was made for digestion system. She took medication for hemoglobin levels. She admitted that after institution of the O.P., she did not visit her matrimonial home. 11. In the evidence, the husband as P.W.1, admitted that he had initiated divorce proceedings after leading 16 years of marital life and that several panchayats took place to resolve the disputes. Ex.B.4 is the decision given by the caste elders’ sangam in one such panchayats. Ex.A.4 contents clearly reveal that the husband requested the caste elders for granting divorce from the wife as she was suffering with ill-health even before the marriage and that he is deprived of conjugal happiness. In the said panchayat, the caste elders resolved that the husband has to do some work and maintain his family, that he cannot seek divorce and permission for second marriage at the age of 45 years and that if there are any health issues, they can be cured by medical treatment, that the wife shall serve her in-laws and perform the duties of daughter-in-law and wife. However, subsequent to Ex.B.4, the parties did not live together. 12. In the evidence, the wife clearly admitted as R.W.1 that she left the matrimonial home in 2011 and when her parents lodged missing complaint with police, she turned up to her parents home. According to her evidence, she was suffering with health issues and that surgery was conducted and digestive pipe was removed and an artificial pipe was inserted for the digestive system. Except the bald allegation that she was necked out of the house by her husband, the wife did not give any specific instance in this regard. According to her evidence, she was suffering with health issues and that surgery was conducted and digestive pipe was removed and an artificial pipe was inserted for the digestive system. Except the bald allegation that she was necked out of the house by her husband, the wife did not give any specific instance in this regard. As rightly observed by the Court below, the evidence of the wife clearly shows that she voluntarily deserted the husband by leaving his company in 2015. Though the wife tried to establish, by way of Ex.B.5 letter, allegedly executed by the husband, that the husband was given amounts, articles, assets at the time of marriage, the Court below did not give much importance to the said claim as the wife did not prove Ex.B.5 by examining any independent witness. So also, by way of Exs.B.6 to B.8, promissory notes, allegedly executed by the husband, the wife tried to establish that she was subjected to harassment by the husband when her brother insisted for repayment of loan amount. However, the said claim was also rightly turned down by the trial Court as those documents pertain to 2007. Ex.B.3 is the certified copy of order passed in O.P. No. 1909 of 2014, dated 06.02.2015 passed by the Family Court, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Considering Ex.B.3, the Court below, at para Nos. 22 & 23, observed as under:- “22. Ex.B.3 the order in the earlier case OP 1909/2014 prove that the petitioner though took steps to obtain decree for dissolution of their marriage, had reconsidered their decision and withdrawn the legal proceedings initiated by him. The grounds mentioned by the petitioner in the said OP are about the suppression of ill-health of respondent and depriving conjugal happiness to him and her acts that amounted to cruelty and also that she left the matrimonial home without intimation etc. 23. Thus Ex.B3 substantiates the efforts made by petitioner, to resolve the disputes between the parties to lead marital life. The petitioner continued his marital life though he contends that due to ill-health of respondent, he could not enjoy sexual life with the respondent and he continued his marital life for about 16 years. Thus, the ground that he is deprived of sexual life can be considered as ground for cruelty.” 13. The petitioner continued his marital life though he contends that due to ill-health of respondent, he could not enjoy sexual life with the respondent and he continued his marital life for about 16 years. Thus, the ground that he is deprived of sexual life can be considered as ground for cruelty.” 13. Thus, the Court below, upon appreciation of entire evidence in right perspective, came to the conclusion that the husband has proved the ground of cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife and rightly granted decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties that took place on 16.08.1998. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the husband that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and there cannot be any possibility of reunion. 15. The Apex Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 , at para Nos. 72 to 76, observed as under:- “72. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented the 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 break down is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequence of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective or bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties. 73. A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a broken marriage. under the fault theory, guilt has to be proved; divorce courts are presented with concrete instances of human behaviour as they bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. 74. We have been principally impressed by the consideration that once the marriage has broken down beyond repair, it would be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interests of the parties. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be surmised that matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction, though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever the 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. 75. Public interest demands not only that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible, and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been wrecked beyond the hope of solvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact. 76. Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied forever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.” 16. Even during the pendency of the appeal, though attempts were made by this Court for conciliation, the parties did not come forward for reunion, which shows that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. As held by the Apex Court, when the marriage between the parties has irretrievable broken down, any attempt to force the parties to live together would tantamount to causing mental cruelty and would only prolong the mental agony of the parties for the rest of their lives. Therefore, this Court finds no fault with the findings of the learned Family Court in granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the judgment of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad dated 29.12.2021 in O.P. No. 1283 of 2016 in granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage, dated 16.08.1998 that took place between the parties. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.