A dead marriage should be given a decent quietus.

Chitra Venkataraman, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is by the respondent wife against the order of the Second Additional Family Court, granting a decree of divorce to the husband who sought for a decree for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The respondent husband filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife, the appellant herein, had deserted the respondent and thereby the matrimonial home on 26. 1994. It is stated that the marriage was solemnised as early as 25. 1994. The respondent based his prayer for divorce alleging that the appellant threatened and harassed the respondent with the help of the police in the All Women Police Station at Adyar and the Anti Dowry Cell. Thus the respondent husband had suffered cruelty both mentally as well as physically and thus the appellant had indulged in acts of cruelty. It is also stated that the respondent attempted to commit suicide on more than one occasion and that the attempts made to bring about a settlement even after desertion by the appellant herein, to restore matrimonial peace and bring about re-union yielded no fruitful result.

3. In the circumstances, the respondent herein preferred the application before the Family Court. The allegations therein were denied by the appellant herein. She alleged that the respondent physically assaulted her and demanded dowry, which resulted in a complaint before the Anti Dowry Cell. She denied the allegation that she attempted on her life. She admitted in the petition that she left the matrimonial home in 1996 after a brief stay after the delivery of the child. However, it is stated that the allegations as regards cruelty and suicide were baseless and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. By order dated 29th August 2003, the Family Court granted the relief to the petitioner husband ordering the dissolution of marriage. Analysing the evidence of the parties herein, the Family Court pointed out that the appellant herein left the matrimonial home as early as 1996. The application for divorce was filed in the year 1996. The evidence of the wife appellant was that she did make a complaint before the Anti Dowry Cell and that for nearly seven years, the couple were living separately and in the course of the proceedings before the Family Court, interim maintenance was also granted. The Family Court pointed out that the appellant herein admitted that she could not point out or substantiate her allegation of cruelty by the husband. The parties were living together for a period of 1¾ years only. The respondent also admitted that the respondent did not ask for money to buy a van and that the allegation of dowry harassment itself was false. The Court below held that by such false complaint made before the All Women Police Station alleging dowry harassment, the differences had resulted in separation. It was also noted that considering the long gap of over seven years, there was no possibility of re-uniting the couple; in the circumstances, considering the aforesaid facts and the evidence recorded, the Family Court ultimately granted a decree of divorce to the husband. The Family Court ordered maintenance also to be continued, as had been done during the pendency of the proceedings.

5. Aggrieved of the said order, the wife has come on appeal questioning the correctness of the findings of the Family Court.

.6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, taking us through the evidence and the documents marked, pointed out that though the appellant left the matrimonial home in 1996, her husband had not taken any step for restitution of conjugal rights to enable her to return back to the matrimonial house along with the child. In the light of the same, the allegation of the respondent not substantiated, learned counsel pleaded for setting aside of the order.

7. A perusal of the evidence of t