JUDGMENT The total evidence obtaining in the case is that of the husband- appellant and the other two witnesses examined by him, are Jagdish (PW 1) and Prahlad (PW 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. The other witness examined is Prahlad. Both these witnesses are colleagues 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 S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Shri Sinha learned counsel for the appellant stated 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 u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act that a decree for divorce can be passed. In fact 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. 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. It is his associates and company which is responsible for the distrust. He cannot take advantage of his own wrongs. 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. It was at the fag 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 come in the way of reconciliation, on the other hand, it would pave the way for restitution of conjugal harmony between the parties.