JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the pronouncement recorded by the learned District Judge, Chamba, on 30.6.2016 in H.M.A. Petition No. 98 of 2014 whereby, he dissolved the marital ties inter se the appellant herein with the respondent herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter called as the petitioner) was married to the appellant (hereinafter called as the respondent) on 12th November, 2011, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock no issue has been born. The respondent is working as JBT teacher and is posted at Government Primary School Bathri, whereas the petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the office of BEO, Banikhet. After marriage their relations remained cordial for about one month and thereafter the behaviour of the respondent towards him and his family changed. She used to avoid to do house hold works. After one month of marriage, she started living in the house of her parents at village Sangrain. In the month of May 2012, she was transferred to Govt. Primary School, Bathri, their relations become more strained as the respondent started holding the petitioner responsible for her transfer. Even after the transfer, the respondent continued to live with her parents and used to travel from Balera to Bathri and from Bathri to Balera daily. He visited the parental house of respondent so many times to bring her back but she remained in his house for about ten days and thereafter on the end of June, 2012, she left his house without any reason or cause. In July, 2012, the petitioner, his mother and other relatives tried their best to reconcile and persuaded the respondent to come back to her matrimonial house but she refused. Thereafter on 25.11.2012, his mother, uncle Om Parkash, borhter-in-law Ashwani Kumar along with Susheel Kumar, Vishwanath and Vikey Kumar again visited the house of respondent to bring her back but the respondent refused to join the society of petitioner under the influence of her parents. The respondent without any sufficient or reasonable cause and with a view to break the matrimonial relations, has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner and deserted him and deprived him from the matrimonial obligations without any just reason. He also averred that the respondent has also taken all her ornaments and other valuable articles with her. 3. The respondent without any sufficient or reasonable cause and with a view to break the matrimonial relations, has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner and deserted him and deprived him from the matrimonial obligations without any just reason. He also averred that the respondent has also taken all her ornaments and other valuable articles with her. 3. The petition for divorce instituted by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Shimla, stood contested by the respondent, by hers instituting a reply thereto, wherein, she controverted all the allegations constituted against her in the apposite petition. He has denied that her behaviour was not property, rather the petitioner is not treating her in proper manner. She is still ready to join the company of the petitioner. She has denied that the mother of the petitioner and his relative tried to reconcile the matter and she refused. Rather, the petitioner along with his associates one Vishvanath came to her school on 9.11.2012 and demanded Mangalsutra and insisted her to give divorce. She has alleged that the petitioner has made her life miserable and it was not possible for her to live with him in dignified manner. She alleged that the petitioner himself has withdrawn his petition and the allegations levelled in that reply were correct, therefore, the petition be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for the last two years preceding the presentation of the present petition, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether respondent has also treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR. 4. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned District Judge, the latter allowed the apposite petition. 6. Marriage inter se the petitioner and the respondent one Reena Devi was solemnized on 12.11.2011. However no issue is born from their wedlock. OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR. 4. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned District Judge, the latter allowed the apposite petition. 6. Marriage inter se the petitioner and the respondent one Reena Devi was solemnized on 12.11.2011. However no issue is born from their wedlock. The petitioner sought dissolution of his marital ties with one Reena Devi, on the score of the latter (i) without his will and against his consent alienating herself from his martial company, alienation whereof commencing from June 2012 and its continuing upto now, (ii) despite repeated endeavours of the petitioner Pramod Kumar, to retrieve her to his matrimonial company, his spouse not relenting, (iii) thereupon, he avers that with his spouse without any reasonable cause also without his consent and against his wishes abandoning his company, (iv) hence, he makes a concomitant therewith averment, of, his spouse, deserting him besides encumbering his psyche with mental pain and suffering. Consequently, on the afore referred averments, he seeks dissolution of his marital ties with his spouse. In proof of the averments, cast in the apposite petition, he tendered in his examination-in-chief, his affidavit borne in Ex.PW1/A. His testimony is corroborated by PW-2 and by PW-3. The testimonies rendered by the afore referred witnesses AND comprised in their respective examinations-in-chief, do acquire an aura of solemnity, given the echoings made therein by them, holding harmony vis-a-vis the grounds reared in the Hindu Marriage Petition AND theirs being not ripped of their veracity, even during, the ordeal of theirs held to a rigorous cross-examination. Contrarily, the rebuttal evidence adduced by respondent Reena Devi, for hers belying the averments cast in the apposite petition, especially the one, of hers being ousted from her matrimonial home in the month of July, 2012 also the testimony, in consonance therewith, rendered by RW- 2, is rather wanting in sanctity, given it being discardable, it being beyond pleadings. Consequently, it is to be held (i) of respondent Reena Devi, contriving, a false ground for alienating herself from the matrimonial company of her husband, (ii) thereupon, hers holding no reasonable cause to alienate herself from the matrimonial company of her husband, (ii) rather hers without his consent and against his will not cohabiting with him. In sequel, it is held, of, Reena Devi deserting the petitioner besides encumbering him with mental cruelty. 7. In sequel, it is held, of, Reena Devi deserting the petitioner besides encumbering him with mental cruelty. 7. At this stage, it is imperative, to, deal with the uncontroverted factum of the petitioner Pramod Kumar, in the interregnum since the rendition of an apposite verdict, upon, the Hindu Marriage Petition AND the institution of an appeal therefrom, by Reena Devi (i) besides before expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, for an appeal being filed against the verdict of learned District Judge, (ii) his contracting a marriage. For settling a firm finding upon validity thereof, a, verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled as Suman Kapur versus Sudhir Kapur, AIR 2009 SC 589 , the relevant paragraph(s) No.47 and 48 whereof stand extracted hereinafter, is of utmost relevance:- “47. Since, we are confirming the decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty as held by both the courts, i.e. the trial Court as well as by the High Court, no relief can be granted so far as the reversal of decree of the courts below is concerned. At the same time, however, in our opinion, the respondent-husband should not have re-married before the expiry of period stipulated for filling Special Leave to Appeal in this Court by the wife. 48. It is true that filing of appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is not a right of the party. It is the discretion conferred on this Court to grant leave to the applicant to file appeal in appropriate cases. But, since the Constitution allows a party to approach this Court within a period of ninety days from an order passed by the High Court, we are of the view that no precipitate action could have been taken by the respondent- husband by creating the situation of fait accompli. Considering the matter in its entirety, though we are neither allowing the appeal nor setting aside the decree of divorce granted by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court in favour of respondent-husband, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if we direct the respondent-husband to pay an amount of Rs. Five lakhs to the appellant-wife. The said payment will be made on or before 31st December, 2008. Five lakhs to the appellant-wife. The said payment will be made on or before 31st December, 2008. (pp.599-600) wherein, it is mandated that (i) the aforesaid errant conduct of a party vis-a-vis whom, an, affirmative verdict is pronounced upon the apposite Hindu Marriage Petition, though, warrants disapprobation also its presenting the Appellate Court with a fait accompli, (ii) yet the Hon'ble Apex Court, given its prior thereto validating the decree impugned before it, (iii) hence, did not pronounce upon the validity, of, the litigant concerned vis-a-vis whom the apposite affirmative decree stood pronounced, proceeding to, in the interregnum since the apposite verdict being pronounced, till an appeal being preferred therefrom also his, despite the time prescribed for filing an appeal, not expiring, hence contracting marriage, (iv) rather for the errant conduct, of the litigant concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lacs, vis-a-vis the aggrieved. However, since, there is a distinctivity inter se the economic status of the parties hereat vis-a-vis the litigating parties in the aforesaid verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, thereupon this Court deems it fit, to award vis-a-vis appellant Reena Devi, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lacs only), dehors its not invalidating the petitioner's contracting a second marriage. 8. The above discussion unfolds that the conclusions as arrived by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of the relevant evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree is maintained and affirmed. However, Pramod Kumar, respondent is directed to, within two months from today, pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) as compensation to Smt. Reena Devi. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.