Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 26.10.1991 passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dismissing a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent wife. 2. Marriage between the parties took place in December, 1980 and a female child was born out of the wedlock. It Was alleged that the respondent deserted the appellant and treated him with cruelty by making baseless allegations against him, and on that account a decree for divorce was sought. Petition was contested where the respondent took a plea that it was the appellant who had treated her with cruelty. He had developed illicit relations with one girl Pummy and when the respondent objected to this, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Certain other pleas were also raised, but it is not necessary to notice all the pleas. Trial Court framed the following issues : (1) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner as alleged ? OPA (2) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty ? OPA Trial Court after perusing the evidence recorded a finding that it was not the respondent who had deserted the appellant but it was the conduct of the appellant which forced the respondent to reside separately. Trial Court further held that it was the appellant who was treating the respondent with cruelty having contracted another marriage as was admitted in compromise Exhibit R-l. In view of these findings, Trial Court dismissed the petition for divorce. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-husband has filed this appeal. 3. Appeal was admitted and referred to Lok Adalat under Section 20 of the Legal Services Act, 1987. Proceedings dated 9.12.1999 of the Lok Adalat indicate that there was no meeting ground and compromise was not possible. With these observations the matter has been referred back to this Court for decision on merits. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant who vehemently argued that there was no specific denial to the allegations that the respondent-wife had given birth to a illegitimate child. The Counsel read out the written statement, and particularly, paras 3, 6 and 7, in support of his submission. 5. I have carefully considered the submission made at the Bar. I am unable to agree with the contention that the appellant was treated with cruelty or that the respondent deserted the appellant. The Counsel read out the written statement, and particularly, paras 3, 6 and 7, in support of his submission. 5. I have carefully considered the submission made at the Bar. I am unable to agree with the contention that the appellant was treated with cruelty or that the respondent deserted the appellant. The appellant is, therefore, not entitled to a decree of divorce as no ground of desertion or cruelty has been made out. There is no substance in the appeal which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.