JUDGMENT : Nyapathy Vijay, J. This Appeal is filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act questioning the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007 passed in HMOP.No.54 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2. The brief facts are as under: Appellant is the Petitioner. As per the petition, the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was performed on 09.04.2000 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Arya Vysya Kalyana Mandapam in Akividu Village and Mandal, West Godavari District. After the marriage, the Petitioner took the Respondent to Bhimavaram, where they lived together. About three months after the marriage, the Respondent became pregnant and parents of the Respondent took her to their house. The Respondent thereafter gave birth to a baby boy. Even after five months after the delivery, the Respondent did not join the marital life with the Petitioner even though the Petitioner was requesting the parents of the Respondent and Respondent for the same. After repeated requests, it was stated that a condition was put that the Petitioner should take a separate residence and accordingly, the Petitioner took a separate residence in Bhimavaram to live with the Respondent. However, the Respondent used to neglect the Petitioner and used to go to her parents house without informing the Petitioner. On 20.02.2003, the Respondent without intimation to the Petitioner went to her parents place taking all the gold ornaments. In spite of repeated requests, the Respondent did not join the Petitioner. Hence, the application was filed for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. 3. The Respondent filed counter pointing out various incidents of ill-treatment. However, it was admitted in para 6 of the counter that the Petitioner came to the parents house of Respondent in May, 2002 and requested to send the Respondent and that he will take good care of her. It was pleaded that even though the Petitioner took a separate house, but failed to provide basic needs and used to take meals at his parents’ house. It was stated that in July, 2002 the Petitioner abused the Respondent and left her. It was pleaded that even though the Petitioner took a separate house, but failed to provide basic needs and used to take meals at his parents’ house. It was stated that in July, 2002 the Petitioner abused the Respondent and left her. With nowhere to go, the Respondent called up her parents and even though the mother of the Respondent pleaded with the Petitioner to lead a happy married life, the Petitioner did not agree for the same and had abused the mother of the Respondent. It was further pleaded that the Petitioner demanded an additional dowry of Rs.1 lakh. Hence, sought for dismissal of the application. 4. In the course of trial, the Petitioner examined five witnesses and marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 on his behalf. The Respondent got himself examined as R.W.1 and also examined her mother as R.W.2. The trial Court after hearing the respective parties, dismissed the O.P that no grounds are made out for grant of divorce. Hence, the present appeal is filed. 5. In this appeal, though notices were issued to Respondent, at the time of filing of the appeal, the same was returned unserved with an endorsement ‘door locked’. This Court on 08.07.2024 directed fresh notice to the Respondent. On 12.08.2024, a memo with proof of service was filed annexing the track consignment report and submitting that the item was delivered to the addressee. 6. An affidavit was filed by the Petitioner on 19.08.2024 stating that since 20.02.2003, the Petitioner and Respondent are living separately and there is no communication between the parties. It was further stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of staying together. The issue that falls for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant is entitled for divorce?. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. Shri Rakesh Raman v. Smt. Kavita, 2023 Livelaw (SC) 353 and Prakash Chandra Joshi v. Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah, 2024 SCC Online SC 68 : 2024 INSC 54 (neutral citation). 8. In Shri Rakesh Raman’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted divorce on the ground that the married couple had stayed together as couple only for a period of four years and lived separately for 25 years. 8. In Shri Rakesh Raman’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted divorce on the ground that the married couple had stayed together as couple only for a period of four years and lived separately for 25 years. The only difference in the cited case and the present case is that in the above cited case, there was no child born out of the wedlock, but in the present case, the parties have a son. Paras 18 and 19 of the said judgment reads as under : 18. We have a married couple before us who have barely stayed together as a couple for four years and who have now been living separately for the last 25 years. There is no child out of the wedlock. The matrimonial bond is completely broken and is beyond repair. We have no doubt that this relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the sides. The long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act. We therefore hold that in a given case, such as the one at hand, where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation (as in the present case for the last 25 years), with multiple Court cases between the parties; then continuation of such a ‘marriage’ would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other. We are also conscious of the fact that a dissolution of this marriage would affect only the two parties as there is no child out of the wedlock. 19. Under these circumstances, we uphold the Order of the Trial Court, though for different grounds given by us in our order, and we set aside the Order of the High Court and grant a decree of divorce to the appellant/husband. Their marriage shall stand dissolved. 9. In Prakash Chandra Joshi’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exercised power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown as the parties are not in contact for almost 13 years. Their marriage shall stand dissolved. 9. In Prakash Chandra Joshi’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court exercised power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown as the parties are not in contact for almost 13 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted the fact that Respondent/wife in the cited case was not even responding to the summons issued by the Court and it is apparent that she has no interest in continuing the relationship. Para 15 thereof reads as under : 15. Reverting back to the case in hand, to accord satisfaction as to whether the present is a fit case for exercise of power under Article 142 (1) of the Constitution of India to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, we see that the parties are residing separately since February, 2011 and there have been no contact whatsoever between them during this long period of almost 13 years. The Respondent-wife is not even responding to the summons issued by the courts. It seems she is no longer interested in continuing the marital relations with the appellant. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the present is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as there is no possibility of the couple staying together. 10. In this case also, the parties are not staying together as evident from the untraversed affidavit of the appellant from the year 2003. Further, the Respondent is not even responding to the notices issued. Therefore, this Court does not have any semblance of doubt that the marriage between the parties is beyond rapprochement and the appellant is entitled to divorce on account of long period of continuous separation which is treated as a mental cruelty as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 . 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is therefore allowed and the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2007 passed in HMOP.No.54 of 2005 is set aside. The Petitioner is granted divorce and the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent is dissolved. 12. As the appellant is working as a Clerk in a Nutrine Agency, the appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) to the Respondent/wife as permanent alimony. The Petitioner is granted divorce and the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent is dissolved. 12. As the appellant is working as a Clerk in a Nutrine Agency, the appellant shall deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) to the Respondent/wife as permanent alimony. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of Respondent within a period of eight weeks from today with the Registry of this Court. The decree of divorce shall be effective only from the date of such deposit. 13. In the event of such deposit, the State Legal Services Authority shall reach out to the Respondent and after verifying the credentials of the Respondent/wife, shall disburse the amount without further reference to this Court. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.