thereafter there is no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for a period of more than one year. The appellant also filed petition for divorce on the said ground of Section 13(1-A) of Hindu Marriage Act stating that after the order passed by the Sub Court, Trichy there is no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties for a period of more than one year. The above said facts has been denied by the respondent. However there is no proof to show that after the order passed by the Sub Court, Trichy in HMOP No.214 of 2007 both the parties lived together as husband and wife. The respondent only in the counter stated that after the order passed by the Sub Court, Trichy in HMOP No. 214 of 2007 they lived as husband and wife but no evidence adduced by the respondent to prove the same and there is no evidence where they lived as husband and wife after the order passed by the Sub Court, Trichy. Per contra the appellant pleaded in the petition and also deposed that even after the order passed by the Sub Court, Trichy for restitution of conjugal rights the respondent failed to live with the petitioner. Whileso, the respondent has to prove that from which date onwards they lived as husband and wife and where they lived, but no evidence to prove the same. In view of the above discussions this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner proved his case. Therefore the appellant is entitled to divorce on the ground that
