RAJESHWARI PRASAD, J. :- This second appeal has come up before us on account of an order of reference made by Hon. Asthana, J. when the second appeal was listed before him for hearing.

2. The second appeal arises out of proceedings under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hamirpur, which was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Banda.

3. The respondent Sri Narendra Singh happened to be Yuvraj of the estate known as "Sarela Estate" and he was married to the appellant, who is the daughter of Maharaj Kumar of Alirajpur Estate. The marriage had taken place sometime in January 1945. The marital life of the party went on smoothly for about two years when it is said that the appellant left for Alirajpur in February 1947 at a time when her husband was out of station. As she went to her father's place she took away all her belongings including valuables and jewelleries received by her either from her parents or from her father-in-law's side. In spite of repeated attempts on behalf of the respondent, she refused to come back to him and to perform her marital obligations. According to the case of the respondent, she is reported to have said that the respondent was at liberty to remarry and that she ceased to have interest in him. On such allegations, the respondent pleaded that the appellant deserted him without reasonable cause and without his consent early in 1947. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to an order of judicial separation under S. 10 of the Act.

4. The application was contested by the appellant on the ground inter alia that she was not treated well when she stayed at her husband's place till March 1947; she had developed serious heart trouble and her father-in-law himself had sent her for treatment to Alirajpur; she did not take away with her valuables and jewelleries as alleged by the respondent; she had not refused to return back to Sarila but she insisted upon an assurance of better behaviour; she had never permitted the respondent to remarry; and that the petition had been filed for the purpose of putting her to harassment with a view to negative her claim against the petitioner. The purpose of the petition was to justify his conduct in having married Countess Reita in Europe.

5. On such pleadings, the learned Civil Judge framed three issues as given hereunder:-

(1) Has the respondent deserted the petitioner since 1947? If so, its effect?

(2) Whether the petitioner has willfully neglected the respondent since 1947? If so, its effect?

(3) What is the petitioner's relief, if any?

The trial Court decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner-respondent and allowed the petition for his judicial separation from the appellant.

6. The lower appellate Court agreed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

7. The concurrent findings of fact given by the two Courts below have rightly not been questioned before us as those findings must be taken to be finding in second appeal.

8. The findings of fact arrived at by the two Courts below are those:-

(1) During her stay at Sarela she was provided with decent accommodation, wholesome food and all such amenities which were available at Sarela;

(2) It is not correct that she was given inhuman treatment at Sarela during her stay there, and that she had developed heart trouble as a result of it;

(3) She had left Sarela with the intention of permanently giving up her marital relations with the respondent and of not returning back to Sarela or to her husband;

(4) The appellant left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and without the consent of the respondent and with the intention of bringing cohabitation to an end;

(5) Marriage of the respondent with Countess Reita did not have such an impact on the mind of the appellant that it caused her to continue to live apart and to continue the desertion.

All the above findings are necessarily findings of fact and ordinarily in a second