JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. 1. This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been filed by the husband challenging the impugned judgement and decree dated 28/4/2015 passed by the Principal Judge, family Court, Barpeta, in D.T.S Case No. 13/2012, dismissing the prayer for dissolving the marriage between the parties. 2. The case of appellant in short is as follows:- The appellant married the respondent on 19/02/1995 as per Hindu rites. The respondent, however, used to live at a different place where she was posted as Assistant Teacher. Initially, she used to come to the matrimonial home for 6/7 days in a month, but later she started coming for only 2/3 days in a gap of 3/4 months. The respondent was not at all willing to lead a conjugal life with the appellant and the appellant tried his best to amicably settle the matter. In the month of May, 2002 when the appellant tried to discuss the matter with the respondent, she got furious and even tried to slap the appellant. Due to failure on the part of the respondent to lead a conjugal life, she could not also bear a child. And as such, appellant filed the suit for divorce on 20.11.2002. 3. The respondent contested the case by filing written statement denying the allegations levelled against her. She contended that as she worked in a school which is situated far away from her matrimonial home, she had to stay away from the matrimonial home, but she used to come and stay there as and when possible. Besides, she also got pregnant on 3 (three) occasions but due to hard labour in the house of the appellant, every time she suffered miscarriage. The respondent also pleaded that her mother-in-law and four unmarried sisters-in-law including the appellant always rebuked her for not having a child and ultimately, on 10/05/2002 she was driven out from her matrimonial home. 4. During arguments before the Family Court, it was also brought to light by the respondent that the appellant has remarried to another woman from whom a girl child was born on 05/07/2011 during the pendency of the divorce case. The certificates showing the pregnancies of the respondent as well as birth of the girl child due to the wedlock of the appellant from his second marriage has also been exhibited and proved. The certificates showing the pregnancies of the respondent as well as birth of the girl child due to the wedlock of the appellant from his second marriage has also been exhibited and proved. The family Court, therefore, dismissed the appellant’s suit on contest and hence this appeal. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records we find that the appellant could not prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty and/or refused to cohabit with him. There is ample evidence on record to establish that the respondent got pregnant on three occasions between 1995 to May, 2002. Exhibits ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ are medical reports confirming pregnancy of respondent. Therefore, refusal on her part to cohabit with the appellant does not arise. It is another matter that unfortunately every time she suffered miscarriage due to some reason or the other. There is also evidence to establish that the appellant has remarried during the pendency of the divorce case and subsistence of his first marriage from whom a girl child is also born which is proved vide exhibit ‘unga’ duplicate copy of the birth certificate of the child. The respondent used to stay away from the matrimonial home due to the distance of her work place from there and as such her staying away cannot be said to be wilful but due to the vocation she is into. As such, there was no ground for divorce between the parties which could be attributable to the respondent. It must be borne in mind that a decree of divorce cannot be granted merely for asking. Besides, the Hindu law also discourage divorce and the grounds for divorce enumerated in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must be substantiated. The impugned judgment and decree does not bear any illegality calling for interference. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.