Mat.App. 1/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SINGH (Madan B. Lokur, CJ) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.9.2005 passed b y the District Judge, Kokrajhar in TS (D) 4/2002. 2. According to the respondent/husband who had filed the petition for divor ce under Section 13(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging desertion by his wif e (the present appellant before us) the parties were married some time March, 19 97. After spending about 1‰ months together, the appellant left the matrimonial home on or about 27.4.1997. According to the respondent/husband, he made some at tempts to get his wife back to the matrimonial home but was not successful. Acco rdingly, on 13.1.1998, he sent a notice requiring her to come back to the matrim onial home within a week. Although the appellant received the notice, she did no t send any reply thereto nor did she return to the matrimonial home. 3. Under the circumstances, the respondent/husband filed a petition for div orce on the ground that the appellant had deserted him without any reasonable ca use. 4. The appellant filed written statement in which she stated that she is wi lling to live with the respondent/husband as his wife. Apart from that, she deni ed the allegations made in the petition for divorce. 5. The respondent/husband produced three witnesses in support of his case. PW 1 is the respondent/husband himself and he stated on affidavit by way of exam ination in chief that he had served a notice upon his wife to return to the matr imonial home. Although the notice was received by the wife, she did not file any reply to the notice nor she return to the matrimonial home. He further alleged that the wife had developed adulterated relationship, but it is not necessary fo r us to go into that allegation. He made out a case of desertion by the appellan t without reasonable cause. 6. The respondent/husband was crossed examined but we find that nothing sub stantial has come up in the cross examination to warrant any conclusion that a c ase of desertion was not made out. 7. Similarly, PW 2 Md. Karim Ali and PW 3 Partha Dutta Choudhury also state d that the appellant had deserted the matrimonial home without any reasonable ca use. They also alleged that the appellant was leading an adulterous life. Their cross examination also does not reveal anything substantial to discredit their t estimony. 8. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, she did not appear in the witness box nor did she file any affidavit by way of evidence. Under the circumstances, the learned Trial Court allowed the petition and granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is now before us. 10. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 6.1.2006. When the matter was tak en up for consideration on 3.5.2011, learned counsel for the appellant stated th at his client is prepared to live with the respondent/husband. Accordingly, both the parties were called for a discussion on 13.6.2011. The order sheet shows th at on that date, the respondent did not enter appearance. A settlement was, ther efore, not possible. 11. The matter is now listed for final hearing and we have heard learned cou nsel for the appellant. Apart from repeating that the appellant is prepared to l ive with the respondent/husband as his wife, no further submission has been made by learned counsel for the appellant. 12. We find that the submission made by the appellant that she is prepared t o live with the respondent/husband has been made only for the sake of making suc h a statement. It appears from the record that efforts were made by the responde nt/husband to reconcile the matter between the parties, the appellant did not re spond in a positive manner. This compelled the respondent/husband to send her a notice on 13.1.1998 requiring her to return to the matrimonial home. Even though the notice was received by the appellant, she did not respond to the notice nor did she return to the matrimonial home. 13. To make matters worse, the appellant did not even enter the witness box to say anything in her favour or to contradict the allegations made in the petit ion for divorce or to justify her withdrawal from matrimonial life because of an y ill-treatment etc. The appellant did not even file any affidavit by way of evi dence to contradict anything stated by the respondent/husband. 14. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant does n ot want to live with the respondent/husband and has merely stated that she is pr epared to live with him as his wife for the sake of saying so. 15. It is clear from the record that the parties are living separately for t he last 10 years and in fact, they spent only about 1‰ months together. In the c ircumstances, we do not think that the appellant is at all serious in living wit h the respondent/husband. There is nothing to show that the appellant did not de sert the respondent/husband with any reasonable cause. 16. Therefore, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal which we do accor dingly. 17. Trial Court records be sent back immediately.