JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the husband-Amritjyoti Duarah-challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree dated 14/08/2015, passed by the District Judge, Golaghat, in (M) Title Suit No. 9/2009. By the impugned judgment and decree, the suit of the appellant for divorce was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are these. Appellant married the respondent-Alaka Duarah-on 04/07/1995 and they lived as husband and wife for about a year. Also, out of their wedlock, a male child was born to respondent on 5/9/1996. According to the appellant, the respondent left his company on 20/04/1996 without any justifiable cause by refusing to stay with him. He made several attempts to bring her back from her paternal home, but in vain. Finding no other option, he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 10/11/1998 and vide order dated 3/6/1999, the District Judge, Golaghat, decreed the suit. In spite of the said decree, the respondent did not return to him even after lapse of 13 years and as such, he had to file suit for divorce on 25/5/2009, as the marriage got irretrievably broken down. 3. The respondent contested the suit by filing a written statement stating inter-alia that she was not treated properly by the appellant and she was not given the status she deserved. She stated that the appellant did not provide for accommodation, security and status in the Society. The appellant did not take her to the places of his posting and she was kept in a small one room thatched house at the backside of the official quarter of her father-in-law. The appellant used to stay in a different place as he is an employee of State Forest Department and he left the respondent with her father-in-law when she was pregnant of 5 (five) months. On 05/09/1996, she gave birth to a boy child and after 27 days of the birth of the newborn, the appellant came to her and assaulted her. She also stated that appellant used to live with a girl, namely, Krishna Ligira, whom he introduced as his cousin, but subsequently, he married that girl and a daughter was born from his second wife. The respondent asked the appellant to send her back, which he refused and as such, she filed a complaint case being C.R. Case No. 1961/2006 under 494/506 of Indian Penal Code. The respondent asked the appellant to send her back, which he refused and as such, she filed a complaint case being C.R. Case No. 1961/2006 under 494/506 of Indian Penal Code. She also filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 27/8/1998 seeking maintenance for herself and her newborn. Thereupon, after a lapse of 7 months, appellant instituted the suit for restitution of conjugal rights only to avoid payment of maintenance. As such, the respondent contended that she did not desert the appellant and instead, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and hence, petition for divorce deserved to be dismissed. 4. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence and the District Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit by way of the aforesaid judgment and decree and hence, this appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we find that the respondent had sufficient reason to refuse to live with the appellant. It is the ground taken by the respondent that she was made to reside in a small one room thatched house at the backside of the quarter of her father-in-law and the appellant resided in different place with another girl as his concubine, whom he later married. The appellant on his cross-examination has admitted that he kept the respondent alone in a small room behind the quarter of his father and he married Krishna Ligira in 2003. The appellant also admitted having a daughter born from his second wife - now known as Krishna Duarah. It is true that there was a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent did not return to the appellant, for; she was not given proper accommodation, security as well as social status to which a legally married wife is entitled to. There is no material on records either to substantiate the claim of appellant that he tried his level best to bring the respondent back home or that sufficient security, adequate accommodation and befitting social status was given to the respondent as his wife and mother of his child. Rather, there is ample evidence to establish that he has been living with another woman, whom he later married, and has a daughter from her. Rather, there is ample evidence to establish that he has been living with another woman, whom he later married, and has a daughter from her. The fact that appellant has been living with another woman during subsistence of his first marriage with the respondent is itself a sufficient ground for her not to live with him. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the District Judge has rightly dismissed the suit for divorce of appellant and the impugned judgment and decree does not bear any illegality calling for interference. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.