MUKERJEE, J. : The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : The appellant Smt. Hirakali was the wife of respondent Dr. Ram Asray Avasthi, a Professor in the Christ Church College, Kanpur. The marriage took place in the year 1950 and thereafter the parties lived together as husband and wife and a daughter named Saroj Devi was born to them. Subsequently, the parties fell out and the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the court of the Civil Judge, Fatehpur for the dissolution of his marriage with the appellant. The petition was registered as suit No. 9 of 1964 in the court of the Civil Judge. In that suit a compromise was arrived at between the parties to the effect that there will be a decree for judicial separation instead of a decree for divorce. A decree in terms of the compromise was passed by the court on 20-3-1965.

2. More than two years after the date of the consent decree in the above suit, the respondent filed a petition in the Civil Court stating that there had been no cohabitation between him and his wife after the decree for judicial separation had been passed. The respondent, therefore, asked for a decree for dissolution of the marriage under Section 13 (1-A) (i) of the Act.

3. The appellant resisted the decree for divorce asked for by the respondent. Her contention was that she was persuaded to give her consent to the judicial separation by fraud, misrepresentation practised by the respondent. She stated that she entered into the compromise on the express understanding that the respondent would maintain her as his wife even if he contracted another marriage. According to her, the respondent after having induced her to enter into the compromise and obtained the decree dated 20-3-1965, went back upon his undertaking and wanted to divorce the appellant, as she was uneducated and is a rustic woman.

4. The learned District Judge found, as a fact that, in this case the appellant did not resume cohabitation with the respondent for a space of two years or upwards after the passing of the decree for judicial separation. He therefore, granted a decree for divorce in favour of the respondent under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Hence, this appeal.

5. Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act enumerates the grounds on which one of the parties to the marriage can pray for a decree for judicial separation. These are :

"10(1) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition to the district court praying for a decree for judicial separation on the ground that the other party -

(a) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

(b) has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party; or

(c) has, for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from a virulent form of leprosy; or

(d) has, for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition, been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form, the disease not having been contracted from the petitioner; or

(e) has been continuously of unsound mind for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

(f) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse." The rest of the section is not material for this case.

6. As already stated, the respondent had filed the petition before the District Judge, which was registered as suit No. 9 of 1964, under Section 13 of the Act. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant portions of S. 13 :

"13(1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before o