JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is filed by the Husband - Vishnu Prasad against the judgment and decree dated 7/1/2006,whereby, the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh dismissed the divorce application filed against the respondent wife, Smt. Durga Bai under Section 13 of the Act while deciding civil misc. case no. 109/2001. 2. The marriage in question between the parties took place on 19/4/1988 and both the parties lived together till the year 1993 and out of the said wedlock, a girl child, Poornima, was born. The divorce application was filed by the husband inter alia on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the respondent wife. Both the parties led evidence before the learned District Judge and the court below has found that no grounds of curelty and desertion have been established by the appellant husband and on the contrary, it appears from the statements of respondent wife Ex.A/8 in connection with proceedings under Section 498A IPC that the appellant husband had entered into a `nata' marriage with another lady named Maya on 24/3/2000 but since he was in Government service as a Teacher, he concealed this fact of second marriage and created such a situation for respondent wife that she could not live with him and consequently desertion was not proved by the appellant husband. The learned court below also held that merely filing of complaint under Section 498 A IPC by the respondent wife could not amount to cruelty committed by her on the appellant husband and thus, divorce application was dismissed. 3. During the pendency of present appeal, this Court also made efforts for reconciliation between the parties and proceedings in this regard recorded on 13/1/2012 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 242/2006 (Vishnu Prasad v. Smt. Durga Bai) Date of Order : 13/1/2012 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari Mr. Ramesh Purohit, for the appellant. Mr. Vipul Singhvi for Mr. V.N. Kalla, for the respondent. Mr. Vishnu Prasad - appellant - husband present in person Smt. Durga Bai - respondent -wife present in person. Miss Poornima Sharma - daughter present in person. Justice Vineet Kothari Mr. Ramesh Purohit, for the appellant. Mr. Vipul Singhvi for Mr. V.N. Kalla, for the respondent. Mr. Vishnu Prasad - appellant - husband present in person Smt. Durga Bai - respondent -wife present in person. Miss Poornima Sharma - daughter present in person. With some counselling, it appears that the daughter - Miss Poornima Sharma aged 19 years by now can resolve the acrimony between the parties in the present matrimonial dispute and since appellant father has expressed that he is ready to keep his daughter with him for the time being, it is directed that daughter Miss Poornima Sharma will be free to stay with her father - appellant Vishnu Prasad, who is working as Teacher in Government School at Karunda Tehsil Chhoti Sadri Distt. Chittorgarh. The daughter Miss Poornima has also assured the Court that she would live in the parental home with her father with the family of other brothers of appellant and would try to bring together her mother and father. Respondent-mother, Smt. Durga Bai has also expressed her desire to join back the matrimonial home, however, for which the appellant husband is having some reservations for the present. To give some healing time to the parties, it is considered expedient that final hearing of the present appeal is postponed for a period of three months. In the meanwhile, daughter - Miss Poornima Sharma will be free to reside with her father Vishnu Sharma, who has assured this court that he would extend full support to his daughter for residing with him peacefully. The respondent wife - Smt. Durga Bai would be free to go to the matrimonial home at least twice in a month with a stretch of one day at a time and to meet her daughter, as she suggested that she was doing so for the past period also, ever since the couple has started living separately. The respondent wife has also apologized for the past criminal complaints filed against the appellant husband under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC and she has further given solemn undertaking before this Court that she would not file any other complaint against her husband at any forum. With the aforesaid observations, the final hearing of appeal is postponed and the matter is now posted in the month of April, 2012 on 11th April, 2012. With the aforesaid observations, the final hearing of appeal is postponed and the matter is now posted in the month of April, 2012 on 11th April, 2012. If there is any grievance between the parties arising during this period, they will be free to move appropriate application before this Court. Put up on 11/4/2012. (Dr. Vineet Kothari), J." 4. Today, when the matter came up as directed on 13/1/20012, learned counsels in the presence of parties submitted that the directions of this Court in the order dated 13/1/2012 could not be carried out and according to learned counsel for the respondent wife, the appellant refused to take his daughter along with him on 13/1/2012 itself so as to become a mediator for restoration of matrimonial home. 5. Accordingly, the arguments on merits of the appeal were heard since the compromise between the parties failed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ramesh Purohit vehemently submitted that the impugned order of the learned court below deserves to be set aside and decree of divorce deserves to be granted in favour of the appellant husband since the respondent wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and deserted the appellant husband for all these years and also in view of the fact that parties are living separately for a long period by now, there is irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and in view of criminal case launched by her, the cruelty has been committed by respondent wife and in view evidence led before the court below, the divorce decree deserves to be granted by allowing the present appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent wife, Mr. Vipul Singhvi and Mr. V.N. Kalla submitted that the learned court below has rightly rejected the application of the appellant husband under Section 13 of the Act. The `nata' marriage of the appellant husband as well as lack of any desire to restore matrimonial home despite directions of this Court and serious efforts made by the counsels, no ground of cruelty and desertion having been proved before the learned court below, the present appeal of the appelland husband deserves to be dismissed. 8. The `nata' marriage of the appellant husband as well as lack of any desire to restore matrimonial home despite directions of this Court and serious efforts made by the counsels, no ground of cruelty and desertion having been proved before the learned court below, the present appeal of the appelland husband deserves to be dismissed. 8. They also submitted that reversing the impugned order of learned District Judge, if the divorce application filed by the appellant husband is decreed in his favour then the `nata' marriage already entered into by the husband would get the sanctity of law even though for Brahamins, no such `nata' marriage is supported by customary law or statutory law, and the marriage of his own daughter, Poornima, who is now of marriageable age would become absolutely impossible as she would bear the stigma of being the daughter of a divorced lady, in view of their customs prevailing in the society. On merits of the appeal, they urged that filing of complaint under Section 498 A IPC could not amount to cruelty committed by the respondent wife and it was the legal right exercised by the respondent wife at that point of time as the appellant husband and his relatives harassed the respondent wife for dowry and in view of `nata' marriage, a situation was created by the husband himself, which rendered it impossible for the respondent wife to live with him. They also submitted that it cannot be said to be a case of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as the respondent wife is still willing and ready to join the matrimonial home and even in pursuance of order dated 13/1/2012 quoted above, the respondent wife and her daughter made all efforts to go to the residential house of the appellant husband but he refused to abide by the directions of this Court. They also produced a copy of letter written by the daughter - Poornima Sharma,which is said to have been sent by registered post after 13/1/2012 and bears the endorsement of postal department that despite repeated efforts, the addressee Shri Vishnu Prasad Sharma, Teacher of Govt. Primary School, Hadmatiya Kundaal, Post - Semarthali, Tehsil Choti Sadri Distt. Pratapgarh was not available to receive the said registered letter. Primary School, Hadmatiya Kundaal, Post - Semarthali, Tehsil Choti Sadri Distt. Pratapgarh was not available to receive the said registered letter. By the said letter produced before this Court, prima facie the daughter communicated her pain and she also expressed in the said letter that they would not have any objection if the other lady is being kept by her father, still why the appellant husband did not allow them to join the matrimonial home was not understandable. 9. Having heard the learned counsels and upon perusal of the evidence on record and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present appeal of the husband has no force and same deserves to be dismissed. 10. The court below has discussed the entire evidence available on record and has come to the conclusion that physical and mental cruelty cannot be said to have been committed by the respondent wife and the situation created in the matrimonial home by the appellant husband by entering into `nata' marriage was such a situation for while appellant husband himself was responsible and for which the respondent wife could not have accepted and should have lived in the same matrimonial home, therefore, the appellant husband himself is responsible for this situation and concealment of this fact on account of his being in Government service as a Teacher cannot be a ground to justify his keeping the second wife. Actually, the alleged customs of `nata' marriage is not even recognised by the Hindu Law or the Hindu Marriage Act and the parties in the present case are belonging to `Brahamin' community in which no such established custom is there, therefore, entering into such `nata' marriage by the appellant with another lady cannot be valid in the eye of law and, therefore, at best, status of such lady with whom the appellant is said to have entered into `nata' marriage can be that of mistress. Failure on the part of respondent wife to file any complaint under Section 494 IPC for bigamy in light of the fact that she even now wanted to go back to her matrimonial home as her daughter was of growing age & she could ill afford to enter into the criminal proceedings under Section 494 IPC against the appellant husband, which would have undoubtedly further killed the chance of any reconciliation between the parties. The present is also not the case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in view of long separation of parties, which is not even a statutory ground of divorce under Section 13 of the Act. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant for grant of divorce, in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli - JT 2006 (3) 491 also cannot be said to be a valid argument and no divorce decree can be granted by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction on the said ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in view of desire of respondent wife expressed before this court to join back her matrimonial home as is clear from the above quoted interim order dated 13/1/2012. 11. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the present appeal of the appelland husband - Vishnu Prasad Sharma against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh rejecting his application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. The appellant husband shall be liable to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000/- for the maintenance of his wife, Smt. Durga Bai and daughter - Ms. Poornima, which shall commence from the month of April, 2012. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******