JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The petition filed by the husband for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the alleged ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed by the Matrimonial Court at Sagar by Judgment dated 30th September, 1984 against which this appeal has been preferred by the husband. 2. The marriage took place between the parties on 10.3.1984 and a female child was born. The husband is in service as teacher and at the relevant time was posted in village Naryali, Sagar. The respondent-wife was serving in Aganbadi at Khurai. According to the husband's allegation the wife was treating the husband with cruelty by hurling abuses. She was insisting on him to live with her in her parents' house. According to the husband she deserted the matrimonial home in the year 1989 and never returned thereafter. 3. The respondent-wife resisted divorce proceeding stating the husband has undergone an illicit bigamous marriage with one Meena and has also a child born from her. She denied the allegation made against her of cruelty and desertion. The learned Trial Judge accepted the case of the wife, that the husband had developed illicit relationship with Meena. He, therefore, rejected the petition for grant of decree of divorce on the alleged ground of cruelty and desertion. Learned Judge of the Trial Court has also held that the plea of cruelty and desertion was not substantiated on the basis of evidence led by the husband. 4. Mr. A.S. Usmani, learned Counsel appearing for the husband read before the relevant statements of the husband and the wife and the witnesses examined by them in support of their respective cases. The statement made on behalf of the husband is that a false case was engineered to be filed under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code by respondent-wife against the husband in collusion with Meena. The said case in the Criminal Court filed by Meena was compromised on the wrong advise and mis-representation of his Counsel engaged in the Criminal Court. I have gone through the statement of the husband recorded by him as DW1 in the Court below. The said case in the Criminal Court filed by Meena was compromised on the wrong advise and mis-representation of his Counsel engaged in the Criminal Court. I have gone through the statement of the husband recorded by him as DW1 in the Court below. The husband was subjected to effected cross examination and had to admit that his alleged second wife Meena had filed a claim for maintenance under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code against him in the Criminal Court which ended in a compromise between them. It is difficult to believe that a woman would be so bold to file a false case against a person by claiming him to be her husband on to obtain maintenance for herself and her child. The explanation offered by the husband in the cross examination that he effected a compromise in a criminal case filed by Meena on some misrepresentation made by his Counsel is too lame an excuse to be accepted. He has admitted in his cross-examination that in the criminal case the statement of Meena was recorded in which she claimed maintenance on the basis of her sexual connection with the present husband. The husband has also not denied that he did not obtain any verdict on merit from the Criminal Court that there is no such connection of the husband with Meena. 5. On the above circumstances and facts on record the learned Judge of the Trial Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant husband has developed illicit relationship with Meena. That gave full justification for the respondent-wife to live apart from the husband and resisting the proceed- ings of divorce. The allegations of cruelty and desertion also are not of such a nature as to justify a decree of divorce. Hurling of abuses between the couples on minor invitations and leaving the home is not in itself an evidence of cruelty or an intention to desert the matrimonial home. The husband has utterly failed to make out any ground to dissolve the marriage. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the husband submits that a situation has been created whether the marriage cannot be sustained and it should be dissolved on the ground of its impracticability. The husband himself is the guilty spouse and breakdown of marriage is no ground to dissolve the marriage. 6. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the husband submits that a situation has been created whether the marriage cannot be sustained and it should be dissolved on the ground of its impracticability. The husband himself is the guilty spouse and breakdown of marriage is no ground to dissolve the marriage. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-, if certified.