Honble PRASAD, J. – The husband-appellant is aggrieved by the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Udaipur from the respondent-wife Smt. Mamta. The respondent-wife Smt. Mamta filed divorce petition on the grounds that ever since they were married the appellate-husband started pressurising her to get more offerings from her parents. He started beating her and he went even to the extent of turning her out of the house. In this process, the husband came into contact with another lady Saroj, who was an employee in the Medical Department and started living with her. Not only did he start living with the said Saroj, out of their relationship a daughter was also born. Acording to the allegations of wife-respondent, a son was born from the wedlock and this child was taken away by the husband and he kept the child with Smt. Saroj at her place of service. The defendant-husband contested the petition. He denied that he has ever ill-treated the wife. She has on her own volition started living with her father. Defendant-husband also denied the fact that he has any relationship with Smt. Saroj who is a `sukhwal brahmin and is happily married to one Krishna Datt Sukhwal and lives with him. Therefore, there is no question of his living with that lady. (2). On the basis of pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed; one related to cruelty, another related to second marriage of husband-defendant and the third was for relief. On all counts, the trial court had come to the conclusion that the respondent wife has succeeded in proving her case and believing case of the wife that a case of cruelty was held proved and it was also held proved that the defendant-husband has contacted a second marriage. In this view of the findings, the trial court ordered dissolution of marriage. (3). In this appeal, appellant assails the findings of the trial court and says that the trial court has erroneously held cruelty proved against him. According to lear- ned counsel for the appellant whatever has been alleged does not constitute a weighty and strong ground but a sheer wear and tear of the matrimonial life. (3). In this appeal, appellant assails the findings of the trial court and says that the trial court has erroneously held cruelty proved against him. According to lear- ned counsel for the appellant whatever has been alleged does not constitute a weighty and strong ground but a sheer wear and tear of the matrimonial life. by placing reliance on a judgement in Russel vs. Russel (1), learned counsel for the appellant stated that cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as wilful and injustifiable conduct of such a character, as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. (4). According to learned counsel, in the instant case, neither there was any apprehension nor danger to the respondent wife and therefore, the findings of cruelty are erroneous. It has also been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that demands of dowry are only embroidery to allegations of cruelty. There had been no such attempt on the part of the appellant. As for the other issues, learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that Smt. Saroj is married to one Shri Krishna Datt Sukhwal and Krishna Datt Sukhwal and Saroj are living happily, therefore, the findings are vitiated by conjectures and surmises. it is also the case of the appellant that an endeavour was required to be made by the trial court to make a re-conciliation between the parties because in terms of Sec. 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is has been laid down that before proceeding to grant any relief, every attempt should be made to bring about reconciliation and since no attempt was made by the court below for re-conciliation, therefore, the decree is vitiated. (5). Controverting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant has contacted a second marriage. He has wrongly alleged that Smt. Saroj is living with Krishna Datt Sukhwal. In fact marriage between Smt. Saroj and Krishna Datt Sukhwal has been dissolved by a judgment of Family Court, Udaipur on 7.8.1995. If the marriage bet- ween Krishna Datt Sukhwal and Smt. Saroj has been dissolved by a judgment dated 7.8.1995 by the Family Court, Udaipur, then there is no question of these two people living together. In fact marriage between Smt. Saroj and Krishna Datt Sukhwal has been dissolved by a judgment of Family Court, Udaipur on 7.8.1995. If the marriage bet- ween Krishna Datt Sukhwal and Smt. Saroj has been dissolved by a judgment dated 7.8.1995 by the Family Court, Udaipur, then there is no question of these two people living together. In fact, it is the appellant who is living with Smt. Saroj by the name of Krishna Datt at her place of service. In this background, the fact of second marriage is proved. So much so, the son born of the wedlock of the appellant and respondent-wife was also taken by the appellant to the house of Smt. Saroj, therefore, this fact is amply proved and there is no question of interference as regards a decree being granted against the appellant. (6). Learned counsel for the appellant (sic-Respondent?) has further urged that in view of the second marriage of the appellant husband, the allegations of cru- elty stand ipso facto proved because right from the beginning the appellant had no desire of continuing with the matrimonial bond of the two and, therefore, on one or the other pretext started persecuting the respondent-wife and wanted to get whatever he could extract from the parents of the respondent-wife. (7). We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. On consideration of the evidence as adduced by the parties it can safely be concluded that Smt. Saroj is a divorcee. She has been impleaded as respondent in this appeal. Though she has engaged a lawyer yet nothing has been said on her behalf. The witnesses have seen the appellant Satya Narain living with Smt. Saroj and the son of the respondent-wife was also taken by the appellant to the house of Smt. Saroj. In these circumstances whether there is a valid contracted marriage between appellant and Smt. Saroj is not that material a question but the fact that the appellant and respondent Smt. Saroj are living together as husband and wife is sufficient to sustain the findings of the Family Court that there was an attempt on the part of the appellant to live an adulterous life and thereby offering the petitioner- wife a ground for divorce. A man who ultimately contacts marriage with another lady in the background that he never had the liking for his wife right from the beginning, raised demands for dowry and persecuted the wife, can definitely be said to have committed cruelty against her. In this background, the finding of the trial court is liable to be sustained and consequently the same is upheld. In the result, there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.