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 30/8/2013 passed by the District Judge in Title Suit (D) No. 4/2012, dismissing the prayer for dissolving the marriage and passing a decree of restitution of conjugal rights thereby allowing the counter claim of the Respondent-wife. 2. The appellant married the respondent on 29/05/2010 as per Hindu rites. Thereafter, both of them resided together as husband and wife till 17/8/2010. According to the appellant, the respondent refused to cohabit with him and she used to talk to a different person over telephone. The appellant pleaded that on query she admitted that she had a love affair with a person named Amarendra Choudhury of Bhopal and that she was married to him without her consent. Therefore, on 16/8/2010 he called the father of the respondent over telephone. He also called Sri Madhu Shastri (PW-2) and Sri Radheshyam Taporia (PW-3) for discussion and the respondent admitted of having an affair with Amarendra Choudhury in their presence. The respondent also expressed about her forceful marriage with the appellant without her consent and asked the appellant to free her from the bondage of marriage. Thereafter, she left for her parental house with her father. But, on 30/04/2012 he received a summon from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, Jharkhand, filed by the respondent and as such, he filed the suit for divorce on 4.5.2012. 3. The respondent contended that the allegations levelled against her regarding having extra-marital affair with another person was false and fabricated and as a matter of fact that the appellant and his family members started mental and physical torture on her by demanding gold ornaments as dowry as well as a Maruti Alto car valued at Rs.3,50,000/- and when she failed to satisfy the demands, she was driven out from the matrimonial home on 18/8/2010. According to the respondent, she therefore, had to remain in her parental home and finding no other option, filed a case against the appellant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. She also contended that she was willing to stay with the appellant and as such made a counter claim for passing a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 4. The Trial Court disagreed with the appellant and dismissed his suit. 5. She also contended that she was willing to stay with the appellant and as such made a counter claim for passing a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 4. The Trial Court disagreed with the appellant and dismissed his suit. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records we find that the appellant could not prove that the respondent was maintaining any extra-marital affair with some other person. Although, PW-1, PW-2 and PW- 3 deposed that the respondent admitted of having an affair with one Sri Amarendra Chaudhury, there is hardly any reliable material to even remotely suggest that she was in fact having such an affair. Besides, said Amarendra Chaudhury was also not made a party by the appellant in the divorce petition to substantiate his claim. It is also to be noted that the appellant filed a suit for divorce only after the respondent filed the complaint case against him under Section 498(A) IPC. As such, the divorce case is a counterblast. Had the marriage of respondent with appellant was against her consent or she was not interested in living with him due to her relations with another person, she would not have filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. It is pertinent to mention here that a decree of divorce cannot be granted merely for asking. The grounds for divorce enumerated in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must be proved substantially. Besides, the Hindu law also discourages divorce. It is seen that both the parties lived together only for about 2½ months after their marriage and as such, cruelty by the respondent to the appellant during such a brief period is beyond belief. Had there been any difference or misunderstanding between the parties, they ought to have tried to resolve the same amicably with patience to save the marriage and not to knock the door of courts seeking divorce to annul the sacrament. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the impugned judgement and decree does not bear any illegality or infirmity calling for interference. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.