A.K. Goel, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19 2 1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the divorce petition filed by the Appellant -husband 2 Marriage between the parties took place on 9 12 1973 but no issue was born out of the marriage
(2.) THE petition giving rise to this appeal was filed on 21 12 1991 alleging that the Respondent -wife used to insult the Appellant -husband in the presence of his friends and she filed a false Case under Sections 494/406/34 IPC and also moved a petition under Section 125 Cr PC on frivolous (??) grounds It was further alleged that she left the matrimonial home on 10 5 1983 without any reasonable cause it was further stated that she refused to have sexual intercourse with the Appellant -husband The Respondent -wife appeared and contested the petition by stating that identical petition had been earlier dismissed oh 17 9 1985, that she was turned out of the matrimonial home forcibly after being given beatings and was forced to initiate legal proceedings The trial Court after appreciating the evidence, rejected the plea of cruelty and observed that the Appellant -husband had not examined his parents, any relative or friends; there was no corroboration to the statement of the Appellant -husband the trial Court further observed that the Appellant -husband made no effort to resume co -habitation It was further observed that merely because the Respondent -wife was not able to prove her allegations about the husband contracting second marriage with one Pushpa Devi beyond reasonable doubt for bigamy could not be a ground for holding that this allegation amounted to cruelty The trial Court also found that evidence of the Respondent -wife that she was willing to resume co -habitation was not rebutted and her petition for restitution of conjugal rights was decreed On 7 1 1987 but the Appellant -husband did not resume co -habitation The conduct of the Appellant -husband amounted to taking advantage Of his own wrong The trial Court also found that earlier petition having been dismissed as with drawn without liberty to file a fresh One, present petition of the Appellant -husband was barred by res judicata The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the divorce petition Ag -grieved thereby, this appeal has been preferred
(3.) I have perused the record and considered the matter I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of the trial Court The trial Court rightly held that the divorce petition filed by the Appellant -husband was barred by res judicata in view of the fact that earlier case No 44 was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.7.1985 without liberty to file any fresh petition. However, even on merits, the Appellant -husband has not been able to prove the allegation of cruelty.;