JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the pronouncement recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., upon, H.M.A. Petition No. 3-N/3 of 2012, where through, 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 31st January, 2008, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of this wedlock a son was born. The respondent in the first week of February, 2008, started pressurizing him to purchase a plot at Paonta Sahib and construct residential house so that she could live there. The respondent, was asked to wait for some time, but she was not satisfied and started abusing, quarreling and deserting the petitioner without any reason. She also starting misbehaving with the parents of the petitioner. On 8.2.2008, close relatives of the petitioner had come to the house and when asked to prepare teat, respondent refused and commented that she was dragged in the hell and could not live with them. On 12.2.2008, she left the house at her own and on 24.2.2008, she called the petitioner to Ranjan Hospital, Yamunanagar, where she was surprised to know that a surgery has been conducted upon the respondent. He paid a sum of Rs.3,000/-, there and the respondent could not explain as to why this surgery was got conducted without informing him and at the same time, she refused to return despite of being requested time and again. On 15.8.2008, the respondent visited the matrimonial house on the request of the sister of the petitioner, and started raising hue and cry in the house by becoming quarrelsome and insulting the petitioner and his parents. On 3.10.2008, meeting was convened in the house of Shri Sanjay Kaushal, who acted as a mediator to settle the dispute, but the respondent slapped the petitioner in the presence of the relatives and matter was to be reported to the police. On 20.10.2008, a false FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his family members and they were harassed. On 29.12.2009, the matter was amicably settled with the intervention of the local people of biradari and a compromise deed was to be filed before the D.M. Nahan. On 20.10.2008, a false FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his family members and they were harassed. On 29.12.2009, the matter was amicably settled with the intervention of the local people of biradari and a compromise deed was to be filed before the D.M. Nahan. On 20.2.2010, the respondent attended Satya Narayan Katha in the house of petitioner, but abused him and his family members on the plea that they had failed to arrange separate residence at Poanta Sahib and after misbehaving and threatening the petitioner left the house on the same day and did not return. These acts and conduct of the petitioner are stated to have mentally and physically tortured the petitioner and it amount to physical and mental cruelty. The respondent is also said to have deserted the petitioner by not returning to the house as she is serving in Health department, Haryana. It is averred that the petition has not been filed in collusion of the respondent and the cause of action accrued on 20.2.2010 and is still continued. On the basis of these averments, the petitioner has sought the divorce on the aforesaid grounds. 3. The petition for divorce instituted by the petitioner before the learned trial Court, 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 proper, rather the petitioner is not treating her in proper manner. The respondent claimed that at the time of their marriage sufficient dowry was given by her parents to the petitioner and his family members, but they being greedy and having lust of dowry were not satisfied with the same and started perpetuating cruelty on the pretext that the Santro car was not given in the marriage. It is further stated that when she showed her inability to arrange dowry beyond the capacity of her parents, the petitioner and his parents became furious and gave merciless beatings to her, but she kept on tolerating everything with the hope that good sense will prevail one day. On 15.7.2008, she was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial house when she was having five months pregnancy after having given merciless beatings with a threatening note that she shall be permitted to enter the house only after Santro car is arranged. On 15.7.2008, she was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial house when she was having five months pregnancy after having given merciless beatings with a threatening note that she shall be permitted to enter the house only after Santro car is arranged. The son was born on 23.11.2008 in the hospital, but the petitioner and his family members did not come despite of being informed nor any expenses were born by them. It is further averred that all these acts and conduct of the petitioner and his family members how that they have no love and affection for the respondent and the child and they, therefore, are responsible for break down of the marriage. The respondent denied that she had pressurized the petitioner to construct a house after purchasing the plot at Paonta Sahib. According to her, she had been residing in Govt. accommodation allotted to her at PHC, Chhachrauli and had no reason to ask the respondent for residence at Paonta Sahib. The respondent denied other allegations and justified the lodging of FIR as she was compelled to do so by the petitioner and his parents. She pleaded that she was compelled to enter into a compromise after pressure was exhorted by the biradari and lateron, the petitioner did not keep his words and abide by the under taking to the effect that the respondent shall kept nicely and therebefore, the case could not be withdrawn. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of dissolution of marriage on account of cruelty, as prayed for? 2. Whether the petitioner is also entitled to the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped by own act and conduct to file and maintain the petition? OPR. 5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 6. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned Addl. District Judge, the latter allowed the apposite petition. 6. OPR 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped by own act and conduct to file and maintain the petition? OPR. 5. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 6. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned Addl. District Judge, the latter allowed the apposite petition. 6. The learned trial Court had rendered affirmative findings, (i) upon, the apposite issue appertaining to the respondent meeting besides perpetrating cruelty upon her husband, (ii) and, had also rendered affirmative findings, upon, the issue appertaining qua the appellant herein, willfully without the consent, and, against the will of her husband, hence, deserting the matrimonial company, of, her husband. The afore findings were anvilled, upon, (a) the proven incident, of, 8.2.2008, whereat, the errant spouse is concurrently testified by the petitioner, and, his father, to, hence, misbehave with her husband, comprised in hers, in the presence, of, Shakultala Devi, Preeti Devi, Surjo Devi, Ranbir Singh, Randev Singh and Fateh Singh etc., rather flatly refusing to prepare tea, for the aforesaid. An apt conclusion qua efficacious proof standing adduced qua the aforesaid incident, is tenably, drawn by the learned trial Court, given, no apt therewith suggestion being put by the learned counsel appearing for the errant spouse, either to the petitioner or to his father, while his holding them to cross-examination, nor any apt therewith denial existing in the affidavit, of, the errant spouse, tendered as Ex.RW1/A. (b) The incident of 24.2.2008, whereat, the respondent admittedly underwent surgery, and, hers prior thereto, not, apprising her husband, purportedly on the ground, of, given its emergent besetting, upon, her, hers being left with no time to intimate her husband, is also proven, (c) given no cogent evidence in respect thereto, being adduced by the errant spouse, and, also rather the efforts of her husband to thereafter retrieve her to his matrimonial company, hence failing, as, disclosed in affidavit borne, in, Ex.PW2/A, are, also aptly drawn conclusions, given the petitioner and his father, during the course of theirs being held to cross-examination, theirs, being not meted any apposite therewith suggestion, (d) the incident of 15.8.2008, whereat, though the respondent/appellant herein, rather joined the company of the petitioner, for a day, yet hers turning violent, abusive, and, quarrelsome, and, tearing the clothes, of, the petitioner besides threatening him to kill, and, leaving his house, is also aptly concluded to be a cogently proven incident, given no specific denial in respect thereto being meted, in, the reply furnished, by the respondent, even when, the aforesaid fact, stood, specifically averred, in, the apt petition. (e) More so, when the affidavit borne in Ex.PW2/B, earmarks, the aforesaid factum, with clear elucidation, and, when he during the course of his being cross-examined, rather remaining uncross-examined qua it. (f) Furthermore, an incident of 3.10.2008, occurring in the meeting convened in the house, of, one Sanjay Kaushal, for amicably settling the dispute inter se the parties, whereat, the respectable persons, of, the biradari were present, whereat, the errant spouse, in the presence, of, the respectables, of, the biradari, slapped the petitioner besides insulted him, is aptly concluded to be cogently proven, (g) given, despite it, standing specifically averred in the apt petition, besides being narrated in EX.PW2/A, yet, no specific denial thereto emanating from the respondent, nor the counsel appearing for the respondent while holding him to cross-examination, hence, meeting in denial thereof, any, apt suggestion. 7. 7. Be that as it may, the incident of 22.2.2010, whereat, in a religious congregation held in the house, of, the husband of the appellant herein, and, prior whereto, an, amicable settlement, occurred on 29.12.2009, the factum, of, the errant spouse abusing her husband, and, his family members, for want of theirs making arrangements, for her separate residence, is also aptly concluded to stand cogently proven, (a) given, despite, it standing specifically averred in paragraph No. 8 of the petition, yet it standing not denied in the apt reply, besides given the petitioner, despite his making averments, in consonance therewith, in Ex.PW2/A, his remaining uncross-examined, vis-a-vis, it, by the learned counsel for the errant spouse. Lastly, an FIR lodged against the petitioner/respondent herein, under Section 498-A, and, under Section 506 of the IPC, whereon a verdict of acquittal stood pronounced, vis-a-vis, the respondent herein/petitioner, and, during the pendency, of, the apt criminal case, against, the respondent herein/petitioner, the endeavour of the errant spouse, through, hers casting an application, under, Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., for, hence adding along with him, the, parents of the respondent herein/petitioner, as, accused, also yielded unsuccessful result, (b) and, effects whereof are qua hence, the, allegations constituted in the FIR being concludable to be falsely drawn against him, whereupon, obviously, he was beset with immense trauma, and, also concomitant therewith cruelty rather also stood entailed upon him. The result of the above discussion is that the findings recorded, upon, the apt issues by the learned trial Court, are, anvilled upon proper appreciation, of, the material on record. 8. During the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, the appellant herein has cast, two applications herebefore, one bearing CMP No. 11284 of 2017, constituted under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the CPC, and, the second bearing CMP No. 11276 of 2017, constituted under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, for, adding, in, the array, of, respondent, one Divya alias Reena, (a) given, the respondent herein, after, the impugned verdict being pronounced, and, after, this Court, upon, CMP No. 21.09.2017, on 21.09.2017, rendering orders, hence, staying the operation of the impugned verdict, (b) his rather sloemnising, a, marriage with aforesaid Divya alias Reena, on 11.11.2017, besides qua the aforesaid evident effect, leave for tendering the relevant certificate, being accorded, vis-a-vis, the appellant herein. Even if, the aforesaid marriage, is, solemnized inter se one Divya alias Reena, and, the respondent herein, and, also with, the solemnization of marriage inter se both, rather occurring, after, this Court, upon, CMP No. 7939 of 2017 on 21.09.2017, rather ordering, for, staying, the, operation of the impugned verdict, rendered by the learned trial Court, (c) yet when it is not averred, nor proven qua the respondent herein/ petitioner, hence, solemnizing marriage with one Divya alias Reena, despite, the copy, of, the order pronounced on 21.09.2017, upon, CMP No. 7939 of 2017, being served upon him, (d) whereas, with the aforesaid fact rather being enjoined to be cogently proven, and, with its remaining unproven, does constrain this Court, to dismiss, both, the aforesaid applications. Even otherwise, when the aforesaid effectuation, of, evident apt service of orders pronounced, upon, CMP No. 7939 of 2017, on, 21.09.2017, upon, the respondent herein, was imperative, whereas, its service, upon, him rather remaining unproven, (e) whereas when hence only apt proven, service, upon, the respondent herein, would constrain this Court, to, prima facie hence make, a, tentative conclusion qua it being a nonest, void marriage, also, when hence this Court may be, constrained to, allow the addition of one Divya alias Reena as a party to the lis, (f) yet, for all the aforesaid omissions, this Court is reiteratedly inclined to decline the apt relief, upon, the aforesaid applications, vis-a-vis, the appellant herein. Consequently, both the aforesaid applications are dismissed. 9. At this stage, it is imperative, to, deal with the uncontroverted factum of the petitioner/ respondent herein, one, Dinesh Kumar in the interregnum, since, the rendition of an apposite verdict, upon, the Hindu Marriage Petition AND the institution of an appeal therefrom, by Seema Devi (i) besides during the pendency thereof (ii) his contracting a marriage. For settling a firm finding upon validity thereof, a n apt allusion, to, 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 paragraphs No. 47 and 48 whereof stand extracted hereinafter, is of utmost relevance:- “47. For settling a firm finding upon validity thereof, a n apt allusion, to, 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 paragraphs 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, though 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) AND hence, did not pronounce, upon, the validity, of, the litigant concerned vis-a-vis whom, the, apt apposite affirmative decree stood pronounced, rather 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, his 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. (v) thereupon, when hereat there occurs hence substantial apt analogity therewith, hence, this Court is enjoined to mete deference thereto. However, since, there is a distinctivity inter se the economic status of the parties here at 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 Seema Devi, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lacs only), dehors its not invalidating the petitioner's contracting a second marriage. 10. 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. 11. 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, Dinesh 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. Seema Devi. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.