V.D. Gyani, J.
1. This appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
arises out of order dated 2.4.91, passed by the Additional District Judge,
Indore in Matrimonial Case No. 499/91, thereby dismissing the appellant’s case
Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and for a
decree of divorce with costs. The suit was based on the ground of cruelty.
2. On the last date of hearing, an attempt was made for reconciliation between the parties. Since it was fell that there was some scope to continue these efforts before the appeal could be finally heard and it was accordingly directed to be listed for today. It is accordingly listed.
3. Shri Sinha learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Amarsingh
learned Counsel for the-respondent are heard.
4. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed the issues as
(1) Whether the n.a./wife treated the applicant/husband with
(2) Whether the applicant/husband cannot take advantage of his
own weakness of having relations with other ladies and deserting the n.a./wife in March, 81 ?
5. The total evidence obtaining in the case is that of the husband appellant and the other two witnesses examined by him, are Jagdish P.W. 1 and
Prahlad (P.W. 2) Jagdish has made a very general and vague statement. He
claims to have visited the respondent’s wife in order to persuade her to come
in terms with her husband, but his efforts failed. The appellant was carrying
on affairs with other ladies, and the respondent was not prepared to tolerate
such state of affairs.
6. The other witness examined is Prahlad. Both these witnesses are
collegues of the appellant, serving in the Municipal Corporation. He has also
made a general statement trying to paint the appellant in an acceptable colour
to his wife, despite the affairs that he was carrying on. The Trial Court after
considering the evidence adduced by the appellant has come to the conclusion
that it was the appellant who had deserted his wife, and things had come to
such a pass where she was compelled to consent to a second marriage of the
appellant to one Sumati Kshirsagar. To obtain her consent he even threatened
to commit suicide. Efforts made by the respondent to bring about reconciliation did not succeed. The Trial Court, in the circumstances noted above, came
to the conclusion that the appellant-husband has failed to prove cruelty as contemplated Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
7. Shri Sinha learned Counsel for the appellant slated that in view
of distrust between the parties, their separation, by a decree of divorce is
desirable. Law respects the sanctity of marital bond and it is only under the
grounds as enumerated Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act that a decree for
divorce can be passed. Infact mere mistrust or distrust or lack trust between
the parties cannot be made a ground of decree for divorce; and secondly, it
is the appellant himself who is to be blamed for any such distrust. It is’ his
associates and company which is responsible for the distrust. He cannot take
advantage of his own wrongs.
8. In view of the fore-going discussions, this appeal is liable to be
dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed, however with no order as to costs.
9. It was at the flag end of this dictation that shri Sinha, learned
Counsel for the appellant suggested that there is still room for the parties to
reconcile their differences so much so good, the dismissal of this appeal does
not in any manner came in the way of reconciliation, on the other hand,
it would pave the way for restitution of conjugal harmony between the