JUDGMENT : N.K. CHANDRAVANSHI, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/husband against judgment and decree dated 7-8-2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur (CG) in Civil Suit No. 172A/2014 whereby application preferred by the appellant/husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1955’) for grant of decree of divorce, has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that both the parties are legally wedded spouses. Their marriage was solemnized on 13-5-1992 and they have 4 children. It is alleged by appellant that since beginning of their marriage, respondent-wife was under influence of her mother. On being asked by her, she frequently used to go to her mother's house, when appellant-husband went to bring her back, respondent and her mother insulted him saying that he is not suitable husband for respondent. She would not lead further marital life with him and also not ready to lead her life serving parents of husband and children. Due to such persistent insulting and humiliating behaviour of respondent-wife, husband was in mental depression, therefore, in the year 2011, he had resigned from police service, despite efforts made by him and his relatives, conduct and behaviour of wife did not change. In the month of March, 2013, in absence of appellant and his mother, wife along with children left his house and thereafter she is residing along with their children in her parental house. Despite efforts made by husband to bring them back, respondent did not join his company, thus, she is living part from husband, therefore, husband filed application seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 3. In reply, respondent-wife has denied all the allegations leveled and has submitted that neither she nor her mother has humiliated or insulted appellant, nor she herself has left his company. It is pleaded that appellant-husband is police constable, therefore, he always misbehaved with respondent and their children and used to harass them by beating also. Due to his such conduct, she along with children were facing mental pressure as they were living there in fear, which adversely affected the children. Many times, appellant did not return home for long period. It is pleaded that appellant-husband is police constable, therefore, he always misbehaved with respondent and their children and used to harass them by beating also. Due to his such conduct, she along with children were facing mental pressure as they were living there in fear, which adversely affected the children. Many times, appellant did not return home for long period. In the month of April, 2013 after completion of examination of children, respondent-wife went to her mother's house, therefore, appellant-husband got angered and refused to keep her and children in his house. On being complaint made by respondent-wife in Mahila police station, Ambikapur, counselling was done, appellant was also explained by family and social members , despite that, he was not ready to keep them with him. Therefore, father-in-law of respondent had managed residential accommodation and means for them. It is further pleaded that since August, 2013, appellant has kept wife (namely Basanti) of brother of respondent as concubine in his house and he is residing with her as husband and wife, therefore, he has deserted respondent and their children, thus, she is compelled to live apart from appellant-husband by his own. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of any relief sought for by him. 4. On the basis of pleading made by both the parties, issues were framed by learned Family Court and after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the sides including leading evidence, learned Family Court after considering the evidence, declined to grant decree of divorce in favour of the appellant-husband and dismissed his application. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant-husband. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband would submit that conduct and behaviour of respondent was not well with husband, as she was under influence of her mother and both of them used to insult him, she frequently used to go to her mother's house and never take care of appellant-husband, because she wanted to lead independent life out of marital life without fulfilling marital obligations, despite explained, attitude of respondent did not change. These facts have been proved by appellant and his witnesses. These facts have been proved by appellant and his witnesses. It is further submitted that, being a police constable there was no fix time of him to return home from duty, therefore, she has alleged character of appellant that he has kept concubine, which has not been proved by her and the same amounts to cruelty towards appellant by respondent, despite that, learned Court below has failed to appreciate evidence led by the appellant. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and decree of divorce may be granted in favour of appellant on the ground of cruelty. 6. Despite service of notice to the respondent-wife, she remained un-represented. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, record of the Court below, with utmost circumspection. 8. Appellant-husband has sought decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. In this regard, he has stated in his deposition that after marriage, respondent-wife used to lead her life accordingly to her mother. Her mother and respondent-wife used to insult and humiliate him saying that he is not competent to be husband of respondent, whenever he returned home from his duty, instead of asking meal, she used to quarrel with him, hence in mental stress, in the year 2011 he resigned from his service of police department, but these facts have not been supported by his witnesses namely Ashok Mandal (AW-2) and Smt. Usha Ray Mishra (AW-3) who is sister of the appellant. Hence, only on the basis of statement of Mahesh Ray (AW-1), it cannot be believed that appellant was humiliated by respondent and her mother, 9. Appellant Mahesh Ray (AW-1) has further stated that on 31-3-2013 brother of the respondent caused accident of appellant’s vehicle, therefore, he had said them that they all will incur expenditure of repairing, hence, the respondent got angered and left his company along with their children. Various efforts made by him to bring her back failed and in January, 2015 when he had gone along with his sister to bring her back, then respondent-wife had said that if he compels her, then she would commit suicide. Husband has stated that he had made complaint in police station Pondi, District Korea, but any document in this regard has not been filed. 10. Ashok Mandal (AW-2) and sister of appellant Smt. Usha Ray Mishra (AW-3) have also supported his statement. 11. Husband has stated that he had made complaint in police station Pondi, District Korea, but any document in this regard has not been filed. 10. Ashok Mandal (AW-2) and sister of appellant Smt. Usha Ray Mishra (AW-3) have also supported his statement. 11. Smt. Ratnamala Ray (NAW-1), her witnesses Smt. Sangeeta Ray (NAW-2) and Antargyani Yadav (NAW-3) have also stated that vehicle of appellant met with an accident while being driven by brother of respondent-wife and in the name of paying cost of repairing, quarrel had taken place between appellant and respondent, but respondent has denied in her deposition that due to such dispute, she had left her matrimonial house, rather, she has stated that since appellant had asked her to repair the vehicle, therefore, she went to her parental home to arrange money, in between, appellant brought Basanti, wife of her brother in their house. She has pleaded in her reply that appellant has kept her as his concubine and despite objection made by her, appellant said that he will keep her there only. 12. Sangeeta Ray (NAW-2) and Antargyani Yadav (NAW-3) have also deposed that appellant has kept Basanti in his house as his wife and she has also delivered a child from him. Although Sangeeta Ray (NAW-2) has admitted that tenants reside in the house of appellant, but he along with respondent have denied suggestion that Basanti is residing as a tenant in the house of appellant. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to disbelieve their statement that appellant has kept Basanti as his wife. Appellant Mahesh Ray (AW-1) himself has admitted in his cross-examination at Para 7 that Basanti is residing with them in his house situated at Subhash Nagar. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narendra vs. K. Meena, (2016) 9 SCC 455 has held that leveling of absolutely false allegations and that too, with regard to an extra-marital life to be quite serious and that can surely be a cause for mental cruelty. This fact has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194 . 14. This fact has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194 . 14. In the instant case, although appellant Mahesh Ray (AW-1) has denied in his cross-examination that he has kept Basanti with him as his concubine however, he had admitted that she resides with him in his house, therefore, reading this statement along with statement of respondent-wife and her witnesses shows that he has kept Basanti in his house, which respondent’s witnesses have said as his wife and despite objection raised by respondent, he has kept her with him. As per provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, keeping any lady during subsistence of his marriage is illegal, however, we do not want to deliberate this issue about status of second lady, but thing which emerge from the evidence available on record is that during subsistence of first marriage with the respondent, appellant has kept another lady with him. In such a situation, alleging character of appellant by respondent cannot be termed as cruelty by respondent towards appellant. 15. Appellant Mahesh Ray (AW-1) and his witnesses have stated in their deposition that various efforts have been made to bring respondent back but she did not return, whereas respondent has stated in her deposition that she is ready to live with appellant, but as has been stated earlier, because of another lady who has been kept by appellant in the house as concubine, it cannot be said that respondent has left the company of appellant without any valid reason. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting any interference of this Court. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 18. A decree be drawn accordingly.