- (1.)INSTANT appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-9-1992 passed by the Illrd Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 129-A/91 whereby and whereunder application for divorce preferred by the appellant under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (briefly, 'Act') has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that parties to the proceedings were married as per Hindu rites on 1 -5-1982. They lived together upto 30-4-1987 and since thereafter they are living separately.
(2.)ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the respondent never allowed him to have marital intercourse. Earlier the appellant got examined her by doctor, but she was medically found fit. She refused for marital intercourse without any reasonable and probable cause throughout and also ill treated his family members. In November, 1982, she made unsuccessful attempt of running away from the matrimonial home. Once she tried to jump into the well and was rescued with the help of villagers. She then went Raigarh with her maternal aunt and thereafter she was living with her father. She confessed her guilt before village panchayat and executed an agreement of confession therefore, the appellant brought her back to matrimonial home where she lived for 4 months but her behaviour remained unchanged. Still she was not allowing the appellant to keep matrimonial relations with her. In this way, the respondent's behaviour with the appellant is very cruel and there was no option for the appellant but to apply for divorce.
The respondent filed her written statement and denied the allegation and pleaded that she never refused to keep matrimonial relations. She never ill- treated the appellant's family members. She used to do every work in the matrimonial home. It is the appellant who does not want to live with her because the respondent is villager and also uneducated. However, she had admitted in her written statement that due to intervention of village panchayat, the appellant brought her back to matrimonial home.

(3.)ISSUES were framed by the trial Court and parties led evidence.