JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court's Act 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 14th of July, 2017 passed by learned Judge Family Court No.1, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No.163/2012 (478/2014) (Rajkumar Vs. Suman), whereby he dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) and refused to grant decree for divorce. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 23.06.2004 at Village Rawla, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar as per Hindu customs and rituals. Subsequently a son was born from the wedlock who was about 4 years of age at the time of filing of the application. It is also stated that after some time of the marriage the respondent/wife started committing mental cruelty with him as she did not take any interest the house work and always remained ready to quarrel with the appellant. She was specifically alleging that he (appellant) is a gambler in front of relatives and family members and gave threatening for implication him and his family members in false case, therefore, the appellant suffer mental agony by her rude behavior. Further, a false case was registered under Section 498A and 406 of IPC against the appellant and his family members, in which the police gave negative final report and the same was accepted by the court concerned. The respondent/wife voluntarily went to her parents' house and despite making best of efforts at social level by the appellant, the appellant did not come to reside the appellant. The respondent-wife specifically denied to live with him and also refused to take mutual divorce with consent. 3. Upon the aforesaid facts, the divorce application was filed, in which the respondent-wife filed reply and accepted the factum of marriage and birth of son from their wedlock, however, she denied other allegations levelled in the divorce application and shown her willingness to live with appellant along with her son. In the reply, it was stated by the respondent-wife appellant has extramarital affair with one girl, namely, Neetu and he used to life with her, therefore, appellants wants to take divorce and for said reason forcibly expelled her from the house. In the reply, it was stated by the respondent-wife appellant has extramarital affair with one girl, namely, Neetu and he used to life with her, therefore, appellants wants to take divorce and for said reason forcibly expelled her from the house. It was further stated that in the proceedings before this Court against forcibly marriage of said Neetu, an affidavit was filed by the appellant that Neetu is his girl friend and this fact is not refuted by the appellant. 4. As per pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Bikaner framed two issues, which are reproduced herein below: - 1. Whether the applicant is entitled to get the decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized on 23.06.2004 on the grounds as mentioned in the application? 2. Relief? 5. In support of divorce application, the appellants examined himself as AW.1 and also examined two other witnesses, namely, AW.2- Lokesh and AW.3- Bhagwati. On the other hand, from the side of respondent, she herself appeared before the court below as NAW.1 and got her statements recorded. 6. The learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Bikaner after hearing arguments of both the sides, vide its judgment and decree dated 14.07.2017 proceeded to dismiss the divorce application filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13-A of the Act of 1955. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the said judgment and decree. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that soon after the marriage the behavior of the respondent became quarrelsome and she was not interested to live with the parents of the appellant and regularly creating unhealthy atmosphere in the house, which falls under the category of cruelty. It is further submitted that Neetu, is girl friend and the appellant is not having any illicit relations with her, therefore, the allegations levelled by the respondent are false, however, the learned court below failed to consider this aspect of the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that criminal cases under Section 498A and 406 IPC were filed by the respondent-wife, out of which, in one case, FR was given by the police on account of a compromise arrived at between the parties but the fact remains that criminal cases were also registered against the appellant upon complaint filed by the respondent-wife. 9. 9. Thus is obvious that the conduct of the respondent is bad and she does not want to live with him, therefore, it is a case for granting divorce decree but the learned court below refused to grant divorce decree. Thus it is prayed that the divorce decree deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the record summoned from the family court. 11. It is admitted position of the case and proceedings were initiated by the appellant before the High Court against the early marriage of one Neetu, in which an affidavit was filed by the appellant that Neetu, who is his neighbor, is my girl friend and this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant but submit that mere acceptance of the fact of girl friend it cannot be presumed that he is having relations with Neetu. 12. Further, there is no material evidence on record to prove the cruelty being committed by the respondent-wife qua the appellant or misbehavour of the respondent-wife. More so, the learned court below observed that after compromise in criminal case registered under Section 498A and 406, the respondent-wife lived with the appellant till 2009. It was admitted fact that FR was given on the basis of compromise, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any cruelty of respondent-wife towards appellant. It is a case in which the conduct of the appellant is seriously doubtful because he has accepted that one Neetu is his girl friend. 13. In view of the fact that no trustworthy material evidence is produced by the appellant in support his allegations for cruelty by the respondent-wife, it cannot be said that the learned court below has committed any error so as to give finding against him or to dismiss the application for divorce filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. 14. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal, hence the same is hereby dismissed.