JUDGMENT The respondent amended her written statement on 21.3.1991 and submitted that the second wife of the appellant, Sumanbai had given birth to a daughter in November, 1990. The appellant did not make any statement in his plaint/application to contradict the aforesaid statement in the written statement. During the trial, the appellant examined himself and closed his case. In his statement, he denied that the respondent had come to stay with him after passing of the decree dated 1.5.1984. He also denied that she stayed thereafter for 15 days. He further denied that after dismissal of the appeal, the respondent came to stay with him and stayed for about 20 days. He also denied that he had married again with Sumanbai of Nagpur or that he was living with that lady as her husband. In his cross-examination, he, however, admitted that after the decree dated 1.5.1984, he did not give any notice to the respondent to honour the decree, nor did he start proceedings in execution of the said decree. He, however, submitted that he had gone personally to fetch her, but she refused to come. He has, however, not mentioned this fact in his application. He was also not able to explain why the said fact was not mentioned in the application. He also asserted that he was not willing to live with the respondent now because she had gone back twice from his house. He has denied that he has got married to Sumanbai of Nagpur. The respondent examined herself as D.W. 1 and submitted that she had herself gone to live with the appellant after the decree dated 1.5.1984 and stayed with him for about 15 days. At that time, the appellant's mother was staying with them. She again claims to have gone back to him in October, 1985 and lived for about 20 days. According to her, she was sent back to her parents on the false pretext that her mother was sick. She asserted that the appellant had married again. Uttarrao (D. W. 2) is the brother of the respondent and had proved that he had taken her sister, the respondent, to the appellant in the month of June, 1984 and his sister had stayed with the appellant for about 15 days. She asserted that the appellant had married again. Uttarrao (D. W. 2) is the brother of the respondent and had proved that he had taken her sister, the respondent, to the appellant in the month of June, 1984 and his sister had stayed with the appellant for about 15 days. He has also stated that after the decision of the High Court, he had again taken the respondent to the appellant and had stayed for about 20-25 days. He also states that he had made enquiries at Nagpur and learnt that the appellant had married again. He names one S.S. Khare, who had participated in the marriage and who had passed on the information to him. He also asserts that the appellant had a daughter from his second wife Sumanbai. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the second marriage of the appellant was a PAT marriage. S.S. Khare (D.W. 2) has proved that marriage. According to him, he was present in the marriage along with 10-15 others. The marriage, according to him, was a PAT marriage. He also proves that the daughter has been born to the second wife of the appellant, Sumanbai in November, 1990. In his cross- examination, he has asserted that he was present at the time of marriage. It is true that the witness has not been able to reply all questions properly in the cross-examination and, therefore, the learned Judge has noted his demeanour in para-6 of the statement. But, that would not justify the conclusion that his statment, as recorded, is not correct. Nothing has been asked in cross-examination from ths witness to indicate that he had any ill-will against the appellant. He is related to both the parties and, therefore, there is no reason for him to give false statement. P.W. 4 Raju, is a neighbour and has proved that the appellant lives with his second wife, who belongs to Nagpur and lives with the appellant at Jabalpur. They also have a daughter. Evidence of this witness would sufficiently establish that the appellant is living with one Sumanbai and has a daughter born to her. That they are living as husband and wife is also established from this evidence. The aforesaid evidence has been accepted by the learned Judge and according to this Court, rightly. They also have a daughter. Evidence of this witness would sufficiently establish that the appellant is living with one Sumanbai and has a daughter born to her. That they are living as husband and wife is also established from this evidence. The aforesaid evidence has been accepted by the learned Judge and according to this Court, rightly. This Court is also of the opinion that the evidence, as aforesaid, fully establishes that the respondent had obeyed the decree and had gone to live with the appellant. Under the circumstances, there would be no justification for passing the decree of divorce under section 13 (1A) (ii) of the Act. Even if it was to be held that the respondent has not resumed cohabitation after the decree, this Court would find sufficient justification for not granting a decree for divorce. It is appellant's own case that provisions of section 23 of the Act apply and, therefore, it is not always necessary for the Court to pass a decree of divorce. If the circumstances mentioned in the provision are found to be existing, there will be no justification for granting such a decree. The evidence on record establishes that the appellant has taken a second wife and a daughter is born to them. This would, therefore, be sufficient justification, in the opinion of this Court to refuse the decree for divorce. Appeal dismissed.