AJAY RASTOGI,J. - (1.) Is filed by the appellant wife against judgment and decree dt.26.02.2010 passed by the ld.Family Court No.1, Jaipur granting decree of divorce to the respondent-husband and dissolving their marriage solemnized on 15.04.1990 Another is preferred by the appellant-wife assailing the order passed by the ld.Family Court No.1, Jaipur rejecting her application for maintenance filed u/Sec.125 Cr.P.C. vide order dt.08.09.2010. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 15.04.1990 at Jaipur according to Hindu rites and customs but there is no issue from this wedlock. Application has been filed by the respondent-husband seeking decree of divorce u/Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 22.03.2006 and it was averred by him that at the time of marriage he was working in tea gardens in the State of Assam but due to insistence of the appellant-wife, he left his job and came to Jaipur in April, 1991 and parents of both the parties are residing in the city of Jaipur. According to him, most of the time, the appellant- wife used to stay at her parents' house and did not take care to prepare meals etc. for the respondent-husband and she finally left her matrimonial home on 27.01.1997 and went to her parents' house. In the month of May, 1998, she came to the house of the respondent-husband and took her personal belongings like cloths, ornaments etc., which she needed on the occasion of marriage of her brother and thereafter she did not return back despite various efforts being made and she certainly has a proud of her higher education in comparison to the respondent-husband. When the respondent-husband finally failed in the efforts to restore back their matrimonial ties, he filed application u/Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2002, on the basis of the pleadings on record application was decreed by the ld.Family Court No.1, Jaipur vide judgment and decree dt.10.03.2005, which came to be challenged by the appellant-wife before this court in and that came to be dismissed on 08.05.2007 and she further filed which too was dismissed on 26.02.2008. It was further averred by the respondent-husband in his matrimonial application that despite the judgment and decree of the ld.Family Court for restitution of conjugal rights dt.10.03.2005 he has tried his best to restore his matrimonial ties but since he failed and no cohabitation has taken place at least permanently after the appellant-wife left the matrimonial home on 27.01.1997, he is entitled for decree of divorce. In the written statement filed by the appellant-wife, the only defence which she took was that against the judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the respondent-husband dt.10.03.2005 she has preferred in the High Court and such plea is not available to be raised by the respondent-husband. In the same breath, further averred that she is still willing to restore their matrimonial relations. The ld.Family Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, in all framed three issues for determination, which read ad infra:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... In support of his case, the respondent-husband recorded his own statement as PW-1 and of his father as PW-2 and the appellant-wife in support of her defence recorded her own statement as DW-1. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the ld.Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur finally arrived to the conclusion that there is sufficient material on record to establish that the appellant-wife has deserted the respondent-husband and she left her matrimonial home on 27.01.1997 and their marriage has never been cohabited thereafter and this is a broken marriage and re-union is not possible and accordingly granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband vide judgment and decree dt.26.02.2010. There is another application pending for maintenance being claimed by the appellant-wife u/Sec.125 Cr.P.C. which she filed on 08.07.2008 claiming Rs.20,000/- towards her monthly maintenance from the respondent-husband but on the pleadings of the parties and taking note of the material on record, her application seeking maintenance was rejected by the ld.Family Court No.1, Jaipur vide judgment dt.08.09.2010. Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent- husband was not entitled to seek decree of divorce only on the basis of earlier decree passed for restitution of conjugal rights even if that stands confirmed on her appeal being dismissed but that in itself cannot be made a basis that the respondent-husband can claim for the decree of divorce on the grounds which are enumerated u/Sec.13 of the Act, 1955 and decree of restitution of conjugal rights may be a piece of evidence but that could not be considered to be a sole basis for grant of decree of divorce and such finding recorded by the ld.Family Court being perverse requires interference of this court. Counsel submits that after obtaining decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent-husband has done nothing and has never took measures for execution, as envisages u/Sec.28A of the Act, 1955 and his further submission is that Sec.23(1) of the Act, 1955 has been completely ignored by the ld.Family Court while granting decree of divorce vide judgment and decree impugned and that requires interference of this court. Counsel for the respondent-husband has supported the judgment of the ld.Family Court and submits that their marriage was solemnized on 15.04.1990 and from the material which has come on record, it is established that the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home on 27.01.1997 without any cause or justification and once she came to her matrimonial home in the month of May, 1998 only to take her personal belongings like cloths, ornaments etc., which she needed on the occasion of marriage of her brother and thereafter she never looked back to restore her matrimonial ties and despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights being awarded by the ld.Family Court, still she never came forward for restitution, on the contrary filed appeal against the judgment and decree dt.10.03.2005 in the High Court and that too was dismissed on 08.05.2007 and the review application, filed at her instance, was also dismissed on 26.02.2008. According to the counsel, the factum of separation as well as animus deserendi which are the essential elements of desertion are established from the material on record and in the given point of time more than 20 years have rolled by now from the date she left the matrimonial home and no cohabitation has taken place thereafter and their marriage is completely broken down and more so when her application for maintenance u/Sec.125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the ld.Family Court, in the given facts and circumstances, the finding which has been recorded by the ld.Family Court needs no further indulgence of this court. We have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence adduced by them and so also the judgment and decree passed by the ld.Family Court. It is indeed true that marriage is a sacred relationship between the husband and the wife. In the case in hand, the spouse are members of Rajput family which is a traditional family and in the society like ours, the marriage not only brings a wife to the home but also brings a daughter-in-law in the family. For grant of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, it has to be established that the other party to the marriage has deserted the party seeking divorce for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The concept 'desertion' has been examined by the Apex Court in Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar Vs. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi reported in (2002) 1 SCC 308 wherein it was held ad infra:- "7. 'Desertion' in the context of matrimonial law represents a legal conception. It is difficult to give a comprehensive definition of the term. The essential ingredients of this offence in order that it may furnish a ground for relief are : 1. The factum of separation; 2. The intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end animus deserndi; 3. The element of permanence which is a prime condition requires that both these essential ingredients should continue during the entire statutory period; The clause lays down the rule that desertion to amount to a matrimonial offence must be for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. This clause has to be read with the Explanation. The Explanation has widened the definition of desertion to include willful neglect of the petitioning spouse by the respondent. It states that to amount to a matrimonial offence desertion must be without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the petitioner. From the Explanation it is abundantly clear that the legislature intended to give to the expression a wide import which includes willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage. Therefore, for the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid. The petitioner for divorce bears the burden of proving those elements in the two spouses respectively and their continuance throughout the statutory period." It is indeed true that desertion must have two essential ingredients of (i) the factum of separation; and (ii) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi) and both the essential ingredients should continue during the entire statutory period. At the same time, similarly, two other essential elements, so far as the deserted spouse is concerned, are (i) the absence of consent; and (ii) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention, as indicated aforesaid. In other words, it is a total repudiation of obligations of marriage. Desertion, therefore, means withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations i.e. not permitting or allowing and facilitating the cohabitation between the parties. It is true that desertion cannot be equated with separate living by the parties to marriage. It may also be constructive and can be inferred from the attending circumstances. Question of desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts of each case. In the instant case, the respondent-husband in his application has specifically pleaded that the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home on 27.01.1997 and despite efforts being made by the intervention of family members, still she failed to voluntarily restore to the conjugal rights and his application filed u/Sec.9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights was seriously opposed by the appellant-wife and all her defence assigned which enable her not to restore to the conjugal rights were found to be lame excuses and decree of restitution of conjugal rights was granted to the respondent-husband by the ld.Family Court vide judgment and decree dt.10.03.2005, which was the subject matter of challenge in filed at the instance of the appellant-wife and after the appeal being heard, this court confirmed the finding recorded by the ld.Family Court and dismissed the appeal vide dt.08.05.2007 and the defence of the appellant-wife of atrocities being committed on her and other defences which enable her to restore the conjugal rights were found to be mere lame excuses and this fact has been further fortified on the basis of finding of fact which came on record that after leaving the matrimonial home on 27.01.1997 she once came once back to the matrimonial home in the month of May, 1998 just to collect her personal belongings like cloths, ornaments etc., which she needed on the occasion of marriage of her brother but she has no intention to restore to her matrimonial ties and after the finding being confirmed by this court in appeal, preferred at the instance of the appellant-wife, vide judgment dt.08.05.2007 and further the review petition No.53/2007 preferred at her instance too came to be dismissed on 26.02.2008 and that apart in her written statement her defence was that since she has preferred appeal against the judgment and decree granted to the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights dt.10.03.2005 is pending in the High Court such plea is not available to him and even during the course of recording of her statement, it was deposed in her cross examination that she has preferred appeal against the judgment and decree granting restitution of conjugal rights to the respondent- husband dt.10.03.2005 and there appears no reason for her to comply and restore the matrimonial ties and in the same breath it was deposed by her that she is not interested to give him divorce and wants to stay with him. From the material which has come on record, the two essential conditions which have to be fulfilled regarding deserting spouse is concerned are (1) the factum of separation; and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). At the same time, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned viz., (1) the absence of consent; and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention. From the material available on record, it is established that the appellant-wife has deserted the respondent-husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the divorce petition but the fact is that she left the matrimonial home on 27.01.1997 and never tried to return back and has no intention to restore the matrimonial ties and that is supported by her own deposition in cross examination as DW-1 that it was not possible for her to restore the conjugal rights as she has preferred appeal against the judgment and decree of the ld.Family Court granting decree of restitution of conjugal rights to the respondent-husband and is not interested to give divorce to him. Thus, the factum of separation and her intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi) stands established. At the same time, she has failed to justify the absence of consent and no justification has been offered giving reasonable cause to her leaving the matrimonial home and this what has been considered by the ld.Family Court in finally arriving to the conclusion that the respondent-husband is able to make out a case that the appellant-wife has deserted him without reasonable cause or justification and we are satisfied that the evidence of respondent-husband appears to be reliable whereas the testimony of the appellant-wife is against her averments on record which certainly not only belies her testimony but also renders her unworthy of trust. The finding of fact which has been recorded by the ld.Family Court of the appellant-wife has deserted the respondent-husband without any reasonable cause or justification is well established from the material on record and, in our considered view, the finding is liable to be sustained and does not call for interference. The submission made by counsel for the appellant is wholly without substance for the reason that u/Sec.23 of the Act, 1955, if any proceedings are initiated under the Act of 1955, the court has to record its satisfaction and make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties which in the instant case has been completely abided by the ld.Family Court earlier at the stage when Sec.9 proceedings were initiated and so also when the application came to be filed by the respondent-husband u/Sec.13 of the Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and the pleadings on record established the finding that the appellant-wife has deserted the respondent-husband and both the conditions i.e. factum of separation and the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi) have been established from the material on record. So far as the submission made in respect of execution of decree u/Sec.28A of the Act, 1955 is concerned, O.21 R.33 CPC lays down the procedure for execution of decree for restitution of conjugal rights which defence has not been taken by the appellant-wife while filing written statement to the application filed by the respondent-husband seeking decree of divorce u/Sec.13 of the Act, 1955 and her only defence with which she came before the court was that since her appeal against the judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights is pending before the High Court she has a justification not to restore the matrimonial ties or restore the conjugal relations and this cannot be considered at all to be a defence and it is further established that efforts have been made by the respondent-husband as possible for restitution of conjugal rights but ultimately he failed and this fact cannot be ruled out that marriage was solemnized on 15.04.1990 and there is no issue from this wedlock and the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home on 27.01.1997 and despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights being granted by the ld.Family Court still she has not complied with the same and even in the present application she has not come with any justification and what has been tendered by her is that she is not under any obligation to comply with the restitution of conjugal rights because of the appeal being preferred against the judgment and decree and that is nothing but a lame excuse but after the appeal and review being dismissed, certainly no defence was available with the appellant- wife which could support her defence and that apart in the given facts and circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that re-union is impossible. They are living separately for almost 20 years by now and it is also true that a good part of the lives of both the parties has been consumed in this litigation and the end is not in sight and it is a case of broken marriage and no workable solution is possible and at this stage reconciling themselves and live together, as prayed by the appellant-wife forgetting their past, is a bad dream and no possibility can be ruled out. So far as the appeal which has been preferred by the appellant-wife against the order rejecting her application u/Sec.125 Cr.P.C.is concerned, although no separate submissions have been made by counsel for the parties but still we have gone through the order impugned and find that substantial reasons have been assigned by the ld.Family Court while rejecting her application seeking maintenance u/Sec.125 Cr.P.C. which does not call for interference by this Court. In view of the foregoing discussion, the finding recorded by the ld.Family Court being based on proper and legal appreciation of the evidence on record, deserves to be upheld and the decree of divorce granted by the ld.Family Court impugned dt. 26.02.2010 deserves to be sustained and does not call for any interference by this Court in the instant proceedings. Consequently, both the misc. appeals being devoid of merit and substance are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ;