L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent (for short ‘the respondent’) took place, on 31.10.1992. The respondent is said to be assisting his father in ‘Pourohityam’, and thereafter, he started doing the same. Out of the wed-lock between the appellant and the respondent, a baby child was born, in the year 1993. They lived together for quite a considerable length of time amicably. The respondent got issued a notice, dated 16.01.2000, marked as Ex.A.1, through an advocate narrating the factum of marriage and the birth of the child, and the manner in which the parties lived up to that date was also mentioned. Thereafter, it was alleged that the appellant developed illicit intimacy with the 2nd respondent and when questioned about the same, the appellant is said to have replied that she is willing to give divorce to the respondent. On that basis, a demand was made to the appellant to agree for divorce.

2. On receipt of the notice, the appellant got issued a reply denying all the allegations. She further stated that after the birth of the child, she has been subjected to harassment for bringing additional dowry, and in that context, panchayats were held, with the participation of elders from both sides and the respondent has agreed to live peacefully with the appellant. It has also been mentioned that demands were made thereafter, and the appellant was driven out of the house. A complaint was submitted before the nearby police station.

3. The respondent filed O.P.No.3 of 2001 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, against the appellant, for divorce. He alleged adultery on the part of the appellant and the 2nd respondent was made a party to the O.P., in that context. The appellant repeated the contents of Ex.B.2, in the counter. The trial Court allowed the O.P., through its order, dated 13.11.2002. Hence, this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. Sri E.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the very provision of law invoked by the respondent in his O.P., was improper and that even on facts, he miserably failed to prove the reckless allegation made by him. He contends that there was no mention in the O.P., or for that matter, in Ex.A.1, about what was spoken to by RWs.2 and 3, nor the said version was put to the appellant, who deposed as RW.1 in her cross-examination. He submits that a serious allegation of that nature required valid proof and the trial Court has treated the same in a casual manner and decreed the O.P. He further submits that the respondent did not file any rejoinder to the allegations and averments in the counter filed in the O.P. by the appellant, which included a plea about the relationship of the respondent with another woman. He further submits that the trial Court did not follow the principles of appreciation of evidence, that too, when it was dealing with serious allegations touching upon the character of the appellant and that the order and decree passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law.

5. The matter was heard at length, yesterday. Since there was no representation for the respondent, it was directed to be listed today, ‘for Judgment’, with a view to give an opportunity to the counsel for the respondent. Even today, there is no representation for the respondent. Therefore, we are left with no alternative, except to decide the appeal on the basis of the material available on record. We find that the appeal has been pending before this Court for the past 12 years and it cannot be kept pending any more.

6. Notwithstanding the increase in the institution of O.Ps., for divorce and other related matters, it is very rare that the O.Ps., are filed by pleading the grounds of adultery. The law requires cogent evidence for establishing the grounds of that nature. Any lapse, in this behalf must, naturally, result in rejection of the relief. The O.P. filed by the respondent is very brief in its content. The count