Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. Admittedly, appellant, ever since the date of his marriage with the respondent on September 25, 1993 and till such time the parties to this matrimonial dispute separated was living on the income of his wife. The only male child of the parties, born in 1996 unfortunately expired and the appellant cared to come to the ailing child, who was admitted in the hospital, just at the last moment when he died, as per allegations made by the respondent-wife and heid substantiated by the learned Matrimonial Court. The assertions of the respondent-wife that the appellant behaved in most unsocial, uncivilised and savage manner by giving her beating in a public place and further that even on the occasion of marriage of brother of respondent, appellant again misbehaved with her and slapped her in the presence of gathering and further that the appellant even went to the extent of committing theft of valuable ornaments of the respondent-wife and further misbehaved with her even on the road side while she was going to attend her duties, have also been substantiated as per the findings recorded by learned Matrimonial Court. 2. There is no scope whatsoever for interference in the aforesaid findings recorded by learned Matrimonial Court as it is an admitted position that the appellant is not gainfully employed. Appellant has cheeks to plead and seek to prove that he entered into matrimonial bond with the respondent only on the understanding that he for his life would live on her earnings and yet claim that he has not been cruel to his wife. Again, insofar as non-caring of the appellant with regard to only child is concerned it was admitted by him that as long as the child was admitted in the hospital at Ambala, he did not care to go there and that he reached PG1, Chandigarh on the last moment when the child died. The other instances of cruelty, indulged into by the appellant, have also been heid proved on the basis of evidence led by the parties and, as mentioned above, there is not even an argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the said findings need interference by this Court. 3. The other instances of cruelty, indulged into by the appellant, have also been heid proved on the basis of evidence led by the parties and, as mentioned above, there is not even an argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the said findings need interference by this Court. 3. Leaned counsel for the appellant, however, vehemently contends that the appellant had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was allowed as would be evident from Exs.Rule 1 and Rule 2 and once the respondent-wife had suffered a decree under Section 9 for restitution of conjugal rights, it could not possibly be said that the appellant was cruel to her as decree for restitution of conjugal rights is only granted when the Court might hold that the guilty spouse has withdrawn from the com- 2. pany of other without any reasonable cause. While .raising the argument aforesaid, learned counsel,representing the appellant, however, appears to be oblivious of the fact that petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act came to be filed after present petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed on 2.9.2003 and the same has rightly been held to be a counter-blast to the petition filed by the respondent. The respondent-wife, having filed petition under Section 13 of the Act could have well remained silent in contesting the same as if she was to prove her allegations of cruelty, she was in any case to get a decree of divorce. That apart, when confronted with the position that decree passed under Section 9 of the Act was ex parte, learned counsel for the appellant had almost to withdraw his aforesaid contention. 4. The second and last contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is proved on records of the case that earlier in point of time, respondent-wife had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act which was withdrawn by her and that would result into condonation of cruelty, even if the appellant had indulged into the same. We do not find any substance in this contention of learned counsel either. The earlier petition filed under Section 13 of the Act was withdrawn by the respondent when the appellant promised to mend his ways. He, however, failed to live to his terms and improve his conduct. We do not find any substance in this contention of learned counsel either. The earlier petition filed under Section 13 of the Act was withdrawn by the respondent when the appellant promised to mend his ways. He, however, failed to live to his terms and improve his conduct. He continued with his cruel behaviour, thus, rendering the respondent physically drained and a mental wreck. It is otherwise also well settled that withdrawal of earlier petition can not be regarded as condonation on the part of the spouse to operate as estoppel to file a second petition on the same cause. Condonation of matrimonial transgression involves condition of such transgression as is known to or believed by the offending spouse, as to restore the status-quo ante as between the spouse. To constitute condonation there must be two things, forgiveness and restoration. The real import of condonation is conditional waiver of the right of the injured spouse to take out proceedings. The condition is revival of the normal married life. There can not be condonation if the offending spouse continues to indulge in the matrimonial offence. This is what has been held in Smt. Abha Aggarwal v. Sunil Aggarwal, 2001(1) C.C.C. 266 (Allahabad). 5. We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with the first appeal against order and if there are arguable points involved in the first appeal, same normally needs to be admitted even though it is also true that the High Court has ample power to dismiss even a first appeal in limine where no arguable point might arise. In a case of the kind in hand, where no arguable points arise or if such points stand settled by string of judicial precedents, in our view, would be a fit case to be dismissed in limine as admission of the case means pendency thereof for about a decade or so and continued misery of one or the other spouse for that longer a period, which would virtually ruin the entire life of an aggrieved party as in the present case which otherwise is a sacrament. 6. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same in limine.