Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar, dated 11.8.1995 declaring the marriage to be nullity. 2. Marriage between the parties took place on 5.6.1993 and the petition giving rise to this appeal was filed on 1.9.1993 stating that the first marriage of the respondent-husband was dissolved on 16.4.1993 and he married the appellant-wife on a representation that the previous marriage of the appellant-wife stood dissolved by a decree of divorce but later on it was learnt that the previous marriage had not been dissolved. The appellant-wife stated that her previous marriage itself was a nullity as the previous husband in the second marriage was already married and she had taken divorce from her first husband. 3. The trial Court found that the appellant-wife was unable to prove the divorce from the first marriage and, therefore, marriage with the respondent-husband was a nullity. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any error in the approach adopted by the trial Court. The appellant-wife was earlier married to one Ram Bhushan and the said marriage is not shown to have been dissolved. As regards her second marriage, even if it is assumed that her second husband was already married and, therefore, she was not required to obtain divorce, she was ineligible to marry the respondent-husband. I, therefore, affirm the finding of the trial Court of this aspect. 5. However, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent-husband having married the appellant-wife without any misrepresentation or fraud by her, could not file a petition for annulling the marriage as it would amount to taking advantage of his own wrong. In view of this submission, I find that the decree granted by the trial Court cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the decree granted by the trial Court is set aside and the petition for nullity of marriage filed by the respondent-husband is dismissed.