Sneh Prashar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Mohinder Pal Singh-appellant assails the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in H.M. Act case No. 233 dated 27.08.2005, whereby his petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') was dismissed. The relevant facts which need recapitulation are as under: Appellant-Mohinder Pal Singh was married to Ravinder Kaur respondent on 03.12.2000 at Jalandhar as per sikh rites and ceremonies. After the marriage they lived together as husband and wife at Jalandhar and two children namely Jasleen Pal Singh and Komal were born out of the wedlock on 17.09.2001 and 04.07.2003 respectively. The minor children were stated to be living with appellant-Mohinder Pal Singh. 2. It was alleged by the appellant that prior to his marriage with Ravinder Kaur, she was married twice. The factum of two earlier marriages of respondent-Ravinder Kaur was not disclosed to him. He could not trace the details relating to her first marriage and it was not in his knowledge whether the first marriage was legally dissolved or not, but her second marriage was solemnized with Satnam Singh @ Raju. He was informed that the said marriage was legally dissolved but later, he learnt that the marriage with Satnam Singh @ Raju was still subsisting at the time of his marriage with the respondent. The second marriage with Satnam Singh @ Raju was dissolved vide order dated 06.10.2001 passed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Act. The appellant submitted that he had been defrauded by the respondent and her family members. At the time of third marriage of the respondent with him, her both previous spouses were alive and her earlier two marriages had not been legally dissolved. It was further the allegation of the appellant that after marriage with him the behavior of the respondent was irrational and quarrelsome from the very beginning. She was rude towards him and his family members and in a fit of anger, she used to misbehave, break the household articles and tear off the clothes etc. She never bothered for the children and behaved like a mad woman. He learnt later that she was suffering from mental disorder known as Schizophrenia and had been undergoing medical treatment prior to the marriage. She never bothered for the children and behaved like a mad woman. He learnt later that she was suffering from mental disorder known as Schizophrenia and had been undergoing medical treatment prior to the marriage. He also came to know that the break down of her earlier marriages was responsible for her mental condition. When her behavior became unbearable, he filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act on 15.11.2003. On the other hand, the respondent filed a complaint under section 406/498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against him and his family members, which was registered as FIR No. 452 dated 09.12.2003 at police station Division No. 6, Jalandhar. He and his family members were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. During the course of investigation, he was compelled to compromise against his wishes. Consequent to the compromise the divorce case was withdrawn. Lastly, the appellant submitted that there was still no change in the behavior of the respondent and the children were scared of her. Ultimately, she withdrew from his society and started living with her mother at Phagwara and again filed a false complaint before the Association for Social Health in India Red Cross Bhawan, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar. He was summoned by the society and by the Senior Superintendent of Police, when he appeared on 10.08.2005 he was directed to seek remedy from the Court. With the above pleadings the appellant prayed that his marriage with the respondent be declared as a nullity. 3. The respondent contested the petition. The preliminary objections raised by her were with regard to maintainability of the petition in the present form; cause of action and estoppel etc. She admitted her marriage with the appellant and also birth of two children out of the wedlock. According to her marriage was solemnized with the consent of the appellant and there was no concealment on her part. She denied that she had ever misbehaved with the appellant or his family or had played fraud on them. She alleged that the instant petition was filed by the appellant to save himself from the criminal case. Denying all allegations she submitted that it was the appellant who maltreated her to bring more dowry and also deserted her without any sufficient cause. He wrongly snatched both her minor children and was restraining her from meeting and looking after them. 4. Denying all allegations she submitted that it was the appellant who maltreated her to bring more dowry and also deserted her without any sufficient cause. He wrongly snatched both her minor children and was restraining her from meeting and looking after them. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to declaration that his marriage with the respondent performed on 03.12.2000 is nullity under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is barred by his own act and conduct from filing this case? OPR. 3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file this case? OPR. 4. Relief. 5. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. 6. It is evident from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record in the shape of affidavit of the appellant-P.W. 1 and respondent Ravinder Kaur-RW1 that the marriage between them was solemnized on 03.12.2000. The respondent did not deny that this was her third marriage and the first two marriages had not worked out but at the same time, she disclosed that it was not the first marriage of the appellant also. His first two marriages were not successful and the marriage with her was solemnized with due consent. Except for stating in his pleadings that he was a divorcee Hindu at the time of his marriage with the respondent, the appellant did not spell out a word about his previous marriages. It was only when he stepped into the witness box that he admitted in his cross-examination that prior to his marriage with the respondent he too was married twice. When and how his first two marriages were dissolved, was neither pleaded nor proved by him. 7. As regards first marriage of respondent-Ravinder Kaur neither petitioner pleaded or proved when it was solemnized and when and how it was dissolved nor respondent Ravinder Kaur stated anything about the same. However, admittedly, the second marriage of respondent Ravinder Kaur was solemnized with Satnam Singh @ Raju which was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 06.10.2001 passed by District Judge, Jalandhar in a petition under Section 13-B of the Act. 8. Respondent-Ravinder Kaur did not deny dissolution of her second marriage vide order dated 06.10.2001 Ex. However, admittedly, the second marriage of respondent Ravinder Kaur was solemnized with Satnam Singh @ Raju which was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 06.10.2001 passed by District Judge, Jalandhar in a petition under Section 13-B of the Act. 8. Respondent-Ravinder Kaur did not deny dissolution of her second marriage vide order dated 06.10.2001 Ex. P1 and stated that the said order was got passed at the instance of the appellant. Indeed, the said decree was passed after about 8 months of the marriage between the parties, as such, the question that needs determination is whether the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was a nullity because on the date of marriage the second marriage of the respondent subsisted and she was having a living spouse. Dealing with the said contentions learned trial Court recorded the following findings: "At the same time, it is also matter of record that even the petitioner was married twice before this marriage with the respondent, and he is also having a child from the previous marriage. The parties lived together as husband and wife for a period of about 4 = years and out of this wedlock two children were also born. When dispute arose between the parties, Mohinder Pal Singh filed a divorce case against the respondent under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The certified copy of that petition is on the file as mark X1. From the said pleadings it is clear that Mohinder Pal Singh was aware of the first marriage of the respondent with one person resident of Ludhiana and her second marriage with Satnam Singh. That divorce case was also filed on the ground that she was suffering from mental disorder i.e. Schizophrenia. The said divorce case was withdrawn by the petitioner on 09.01.2004. The certified copy of this order is Ex. P3. The application for compromise and statement of Mohinder Pal Singh is also on the file. The certified copies are Mark X2 and mark X3. These documents clearly show that the petitioner was aware of all the facts regarding his wife about earlier two marriages and even then he withdrew that divorce case and took his wife back in the matrimonial home. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that all the earlier acts were condoned by him and they again started living as husband and wife. The conduct of the petitioner clearly shows that all the earlier acts were condoned by him and they again started living as husband and wife. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in now again raising this plea that the respondent was married twice prior to their marriage or he was not aware that the said marriages were not legally dissolved. Now, the petitioner is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing this case. So far as the plea taken by the petitioner that she is suffering from mental disorder, this plea was also taken in the earlier divorce case. In the present case he has examined Dr. A.K. Gupta, P.W. 3 who in his cross-examination made it clear that the respondent is suffering from maladjustment and with efforts and treatment she can be cured. There is nothing on the record to show that she is suffering from schizophrenia or from any mental disorder which is incurable and it is to that extent that she cannot carry with her day to day activities and marital obligations. In view of my above discussion issue No. 1 is decided against the petitioner and issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the respondent." 9. Thus, there appears no perversity or illegality in the findings of the learned trial Court. The conduct of the appellant indicates that in one way or the other, he was only bent upon to get rid of the respondent. Prior to the present petition, he filed a petition for divorce which was got dismissed as withdrawn by him vide order dated 09.01.2004 Ex. P3. In that petition, it was not his contention that his marriage with the respondent was a nullity though the said petition was filed by him after the order dated 06.10.2001 was passed vide which the second marriage of the respondent with Satnam Singh @ Raju was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The said decree dated 06.10.2001 was in knowledge of the appellant. In absence of reference of the same in his previous petition, he cannot now make it a ground for seeking a decree that his marriage with the respondent was a nullity because her second marriage was not legally dissolved. The said decree dated 06.10.2001 was in knowledge of the appellant. In absence of reference of the same in his previous petition, he cannot now make it a ground for seeking a decree that his marriage with the respondent was a nullity because her second marriage was not legally dissolved. After the appellant withdrew the first petition for divorce and compromise with the respondent, it can be said without hesitation that all earlier acts disputes with the respondent were condoned by him. As per his own version, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and during the proceedings of the criminal case, a compromise took place between him and the respondent, in pursuance of which she returned to the matrimonial home. The said compromise had also taken place after passing of the order dated 06.10.2001 Ex. P1 with the said compromise also the earlier irregular acts, if any, stood condoned and since thereafter he and the respondent lived as husband and wife, the present marriage cannot be annulled on the ground claimed by the appellant. 10. The appellant raised inconsistent pleas on one hand he alleged that his marriage with the respondent was a nullity and on the other his allegation was that the respondent had treated him with cruelty and was suffering from mental disorder i.e. schizophrenia because of which it was not possible for him to live with her. No evidence could be led by the appellant to prove that the respondent was suffering from such mental disorder. In any case P.W. 3 Dr. A.K. Gupta in his cross-examination stated that respondent was suffering from maladjustment and with efforts and treatment she can be cured. It appears that the harsh and non-cooperative behavior/conduct of the appellant was responsible for her mental disturbance. Thus finding no infirmity in the findings of learned trial Court, the appeal is dismissed.