JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.92 passed in Civil Suit No. 1-A/91 by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Seoni. 2. The appellant Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari and respondent Hari Krishna Tiwari are inter se related as husband and wife and their marriage was performed and regarding the performance of marriage, the parties are not at variance that the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites. 3. The terms between the husband and wife developed in the negative direction so much so that they led the husband to file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Civil Suit No. 30-A/8S. The suit for conjugal rights was decreed on 29.10.88 where against the wife Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari availed the remedy of appeal by filing an appeal in the High Court being Appeal No. 230/88 which was dismissed on 25.10.89. During this period, no conciliatory approach was made and succeeded. 4. The husband Shri Hari Krishna Tiwari, on account of non-restitution of conjugal rights as per decree granted in his favour, filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 1-A/91 Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the dissolution of marriage by grant of a decree of divorce. The Trial Court granted a decree of divorce on 8.1.92 and the present appeal is directed against the said decree. 5. The facts of the case are in a circumscribed limit as the grounds for dissolution of marriage and grant of decree of divorce was that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the husband and wife for a period exceeding one year after passing of decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The facts are that the husband went to bring his wife Usha Kiran Tiwari after the grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights but the wife did not respond. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the decree for divorce is bad in law and also submitted that the Trial Court has adopted double standard in assessing the case of the parties. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the decree for divorce is bad in law and also submitted that the Trial Court has adopted double standard in assessing the case of the parties. Inviting the attention of the Court to the judgment of the Trial Court, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the plaint it was not mentioned by the plaintiff as to on what dates he visited his father-in-law's house so as to fetch his wife. The dates were given in the evidence and the dates were spelled out by the husband. The Trial Court relied on these dates inspite of the fact that the pleadings in the plaint were lacking in this regard. Learned Counsel, inviting the attention of the Court to Paragraph 15 of the judgment, simultaneously pointed out that while the matter regarding the place where Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari was living, was being considered, the Court held that Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari in her Written Statement had not stated about her living in the Azad Ward and the Court had observed that if it was so, she would have mentioned so in the Written Statement. 7. So far as the dates of the plaintiff's visit for fetching his wife Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari are concerned, it was necessary for the defendant-wife husband to plead the same in the Written Statement as it was a question of evidence and the evidence was to be put to the test of cross-examination. In cross-examination the evidence could not be shaken. The Trial Court accepted the evidence of Hari Krishna Tiwari and simultaneously the evidence of Shri Vijay Kumar Choubey and on both the occasions an attempt was made to discredit the testimony of Vijay Kumar as he was closely associated with Hari Krishna Tiwari. If a person is closely associated by itself is no ground to discredit the testimony unless something of such a nature is established so as to make the evidence worth non-credence. In the present case, there is no such circumstance on which it could be said that the evidence of Vijay Kumar was unreliable. I do not find any defect so far as the evidence of Hari Krishna Tiwari and Vijay Kumar Choubey is concerned. 8. In the present case, there is no such circumstance on which it could be said that the evidence of Vijay Kumar was unreliable. I do not find any defect so far as the evidence of Hari Krishna Tiwari and Vijay Kumar Choubey is concerned. 8. As regards the submission of double standard, the Court in Para 15 of its judgment, has made observations that if Smt. Usha Kiran Tiwari would have been living in the Azad Ward right from the beginning upto the filing of the Written Statement, then, she would have, in the Written Statement, mentioned the fact and not only this, she would have given suggestions in the cross-examination to her husband and not only this, she could have even stated in her statement before the Court. 9. It was only the way of apprehension of evidence and it cannot be said to be a case where the Court can be said to have applied double standard. 10. The evidence has established that after the grant of decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the rights of conjugal were never restituted and after the expiry of the period as provided under the law Under Section 13, the suit was filed. The consequences flow from the law. In such a situation, on establishment of the fact that after the period prescribed, the conjugal rights were not restituted after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The suit has to be decreed and accordingly. I find no error in the judgment of the Trial Court and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.