JUDGMENT Samapti Chatterjee, J. - This appeal arises out of judgement and decree dated August 3, 2007 passed by Shri Bipin Mukhopadhyay, learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Midnapore, District-Midnapore (West) in Matrimonial Suit No.396 of 1995 for dissolution of marriage by passing a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is as follows :- On 25th January, 1985 the appellant and respondent got married at Indra, Kharagpur in the house of the father of the respondent according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of that wedlock the respondent gave birth to a female child on 13th June, 1986 at the Railway Hospital, Kharagpur. During her stay at Ranaghat respondent expressed her intention to stay at her father's house and did not permit the appellant to continue the conjugal life and always treated the appellant in a cruel manner. It is further case of the appellant that the respondent had her habit to pick up quarrel with him without any reason and also with his parents. During the month of November, 1986 she did not came back to her matrimonial home at Ranaghat and she stayed at her father's place at Kharagpur and even after repeated request made by petitioner she did not cooperate with the petitioner in this regard and withdraw herself from the society of the appellant. Then the appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the learned District Judge's court at Nadia and the same was decreed ex parte on 11th September, 1989 and decree was passed on 4th September, 1989. After one year the appellant/petitioner filed a Mat. Suit being No.156/90 before the learned District Judge, Nadia for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act but that case was subsequently transferred to the Court's order of learned District Judge, Midnapore as directed by Hon'ble High Court passed in C.O. No.4229/1991 as Mat. Suit No.428/1992. The suit was transferred to the learned ADJ, 2nd Court, Midnapore and there during reconciliation the suit was dismissed. Suit No.428/1992. The suit was transferred to the learned ADJ, 2nd Court, Midnapore and there during reconciliation the suit was dismissed. But even after that as per terms of compromise of that suit respondent did not turn up to live with petitioner at his house at Ranaghat, she always insisted upon the petitioner to stay with her at her father's house at Kharagpur and respondent did not care to give proper day to day help to his ailing mother. It is also the case of the appellant/petitioner that when he used to stay with the respondent wife it was found that she did not behave properly and considering such sort of behaviour she was treated by the Doctor and medicine was administered to change her behaviour. But even then respondent used to behave in a very bad manner by using filthy language, and he had not been properly served by his wife and further appellant/petitioner had been humiliated in an undignified manner by the respondent and refused to go to matrimonial home at Ranaghat and ultimately petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on 5th May, 1995 and thereafter lodged a diary at KGP (T) P.S. on 25th May, 1996 bearing G.D. Entry No. 1214. After that the appellant/petitioner has been residing separately and under such situation he has prayed for dissolving the material tie and to pass a decree on the ground of cruelty. Denying all the allegations the respondent submitted that from 1st February, 1995 after compromise of the previous Mat. Suit both the parties began to reside at the father's house of the respondent in Kharagpur and started a happy and peaceful conjugal life and thereafter on 24th March, 1995 the respondent became pregnant but subsequently at the pressure of the petitioner, the respondent was forced to cause miscarriage or abortion of that pregnancy at the behest of the petitioner and it is further submitted that upto April, 1995 the petitioner resided with respondent in the paternal house of the respondent at Inda, Kharagpur. It is further stated by the respondent that on 5th May, 1995 the appellant/petitioner left the paternal house of the respondent and since then he has not taken any information about the respondent and her daughter. It is further stated by the respondent that on 5th May, 1995 the appellant/petitioner left the paternal house of the respondent and since then he has not taken any information about the respondent and her daughter. Subsequently by filing an additional written statement respondent submitted that the petitioner already second time married with a lady namely Urmila Bandyopadhyay, daughter of Sri Nirmal Kumar Bandyopadhyay of Sodepur and their marriage ceremony took place at 3, B.K. Pal Lane, Calcutta-700 030. Ceremony for Baubhat reception was arranged at 'Aheli Town Hall'., Rajabagan para, Ranaghat, Nadia on 27th February, 2001 and the hall was booked in the name of one Ganesh Sahu who is a friend of the husband of the younger sister of the petitioner, namely Tuku and thereafter, out of the wedlock a girl child was born, but petitioner suppressed that fact. Hence the present appeal. 3. Mr. Abani Bhushan Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the learned Judge failed to consider that as per the compromise decree the respondent/wife stayed at in-laws house up to 5th May, 1995. After that the respondent/wife never stayed with the appellant/husband . 4. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that only attested copy of the Sarada Seva Sadan (Exbt. A6) was produced but not the original. Therefore, it is not proved that the appellant/husband second time married one Urmila on 25th February, 2001 and out of that wedlock on 17th December, 2001 Srija the second girl child was born. Therefore, it is further submitted by Mr. Ghosh that learned Judge failed to appreciate that it is the respondent/wife who withdrew herself from the in-laws society thereby leaving the appellant/petitioner in a dissertion which amounts to mental cruelty also. Accordingly Mr. Ghosh submitted that Court should allow the appeal thereby passing the dissolution of marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the wife after setting aside the judgement and order dated 3rd August, 2007 passed by the 4th Court of ADJ, Midnapore (West) Sri Bipin Mukhopadhyay. 5. Though the suit was contested before the learned Court but no one appeared to contest the appeal on behalf of the respondent/wife. Decision with Reasons 6. Considering the submissions as advanced by Mr. Ghosh and after perusing the record we find that on 25th January, 1985 marriage was solemnized between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife as Hindu rites and customs. 7. Decision with Reasons 6. Considering the submissions as advanced by Mr. Ghosh and after perusing the record we find that on 25th January, 1985 marriage was solemnized between the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife as Hindu rites and customs. 7. It is also an admitted fact that up to the year 1986 the parties resided as husband and wife at Ranaghat in the house of the petitioner. It is also admitted fact that out of that wedlock on 23rd June, 1986 at Kharagpur Railway Hospital one girl child was born. It is also not out of place to mention that since the date of marriage i.e. on and from 25th January, 1985 to 8th February, 2001 the petitioner husband was posted in the Railway Department at Kharagpur and upto 5th May, 1995 the petitioner and the respondent/wife resided at Kharagpur. 8. It is also an admitted fact that since May 2, 1995 the petitioner did not take any information regarding his wife and daughter since then the petitioner did not pay any maintenance to his wife and daughter. Curiously enough though the appellant/petitioner got married to the respondent/wife on 25th January, 1985 but the petitioner did not mention in his service book pertaining to the details of his family. On the contrary, in the service book the petitioner has shown his status as unmarried which has not been changed or corrected till date. 9. It is also admitted from the evidence of the P.W.1 the petitioner that he has not known regarding Urmila and her daughter Srija. It is also admitted from the evidence of P.W.2 the petitioner did not attend his office Kharagpur from Ranaghat. There is no cogent evidence regarding arrogant attitude and misbehaviour of the respondent/wife against the petitioner/husband. 10. We find that P.W.2 the brother of the respondent/wife admitted regarding second marriage of the petitioner. The evidence of the wife proved the birth certificate of daughter Srija born out of the second marriage with Urmila , Exbt. A the marriage card and Exbt.A6 (The attested copy of the birth certificate of the second daughter Srija) born out of second marriage. 11. We also cannot ignore the fact that no objection was raised from the petitioner at the time of placing the attested copy of the birth certificate as Exbt.A6. Even in the cross-examination of the petitioner no denial of the birth certificate was made. 12. 11. We also cannot ignore the fact that no objection was raised from the petitioner at the time of placing the attested copy of the birth certificate as Exbt.A6. Even in the cross-examination of the petitioner no denial of the birth certificate was made. 12. Therefore, considering the above discussion and after meticulously perusing the records it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant/petitioner married second time to one Urmila on 25th February, 2001 and out of that wedlock on 17th December, 2001 a girl child namely Srija was born. 13. Accordingly in our considered view the suit filed by the appellant/petitioner for dissolution of marriage tie thereby passing a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was rightly dismissed which does not deserve any interference by this Hon'ble Court. 14. Resultantly, the appeal is also dismissed however without any order as to costs. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on urgent basis.