ORDER A.K. Goel, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.2.1996 of the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband. Vide order dated 11.9.1996 this court restrained the respondent-husband from remarriage. 2. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and the proceedings dated 24.5.2001 indicate that the husband remarried in violation of the direction of this Court. The Lok Adalat suggested that the matter be settled on the husband paying a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the wife for the upbringing of the child who was in her custody but the husband did not accept this offer. Finding no possibility of compromise, the matter has been sent back to the High Court for a decision on merits. 3. Marriage between the parties took place on 19.10.1996 and on 24.9.1987 a male child was born out of the wedlock. The divorce petition giving rise to this appeal was filed on 10.5.1991 alleging that the wife was hot-headed and misbehaved with the husband and that she left the matrimonial home in August, 1988. It was alleged that she resumed cohabitation on 1.10.1988 but her behaviour was not conducive and she finally left the matrimonial home on 5.4.1989. The wife contested the petition and stated that she was turned out of the matrimonial home not being able to satisfy the demand of dowry and inspite of her efforts, the husband was not willing to resume cohabitation. The trial Court observed that the wife had withdrawn from the society of the husband without any sufficient cause and since here allegations about the demand of dowry could not be believed, there was no justification for her to live separately. 4. I am unable to agree with the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. The husband is levelling allegations against the wife from the first day of the marriage which itself shows that he was not willing to live with the wife. In view of the case of the husband himself, it could not be held that the wife was living separately of her own accord. The trial Court ought to have seen that the claim of the husband that he was making efforts to resume cohabitation was contradicted by his allegation that the behaviour of the wife from the beginning was not conductive. The trial Court ought to have seen that the claim of the husband that he was making efforts to resume cohabitation was contradicted by his allegation that the behaviour of the wife from the beginning was not conductive. My inference from the record is that the husband was trying to get rid of the wife on false allegations by falsely claiming that he was making efforts to resume cohabitation. The husband has contracted second marriage in violation of the order of this court. My inference from the material on record is reinforced by the conduct of the husband that the husband has made no efforts to look after the child but by seeking divorce, he is only trying to take advantage of his own wrong. 5. In view of the above, I allow this appeal with costs throughout, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismiss the divorce petition filed by the husband. Appeal allowed.