S.N. Modi, J.
1. This is an appeal by the husband in a proceeding for divorce instituted by the wife under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.
2. The marriage of the respondent Smt. Geeta was solemnised with the appellant some 12 or 13 years back at village Tikholi according to the Hindu rites. The appellant thereafter married one Mst. Misri. The respondent wife thereupon filed a petition for grant of a decree for divorce against the appellant, her husband, on the ground of adultery. The appellant admitted having married Mst. Misri but contested the petition on the ground that he married Mst. Misri with the consent of the respondent. It was also alleged that the respondent condoned the adulterous living of the appellant with Mst. Misri. The learned Additional District Judge, Tonk on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the non petitioner (Prabhu) has been living in adultery with Mst. Misri?
(2) Whether the non-petitioner (Prabbu) bad contracted 'nata' with Mst. Misri with the consent of the petitioner and the petitioner (Smt. Geeta) condoned the adulterous living of the non-petitioner with Mst. Misri?
On careful consideration of the evidence led by the parties the teamed Additional District judge decided issue No. 1 in favour the wife Smt. Geeta and issue No. 2 against the husband Prabhu. On the above finding's, the learned Additional District Judge passed a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. The husband Prabhu has filed this first appeal before this Court.
3. It is not disputed before me that that appellant Prabhu married Mst. Misri after his marriage with the respondent Smt. Geeta. Under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act a marriage may be solemnised between any two Hindus if neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage. In view of the above, the second marriage performed by the husband Prabhu with Mst. Misri was prima facie illegal and it can safely be said that at the time of petition, Prabhu was living in adultery with Mst. Misri. The case of Prabhu is that be performed marriage with Mst. Misri with the consent of respondent Smt. Geeta. In order to prove this fact the appellant produced, 9 witnesses in all. The learned Additional Distract Judge has discussed each one of them and dealt with their evidence exhaustively According to the defendant's witnesses, the respondent Smt. Geeta even after second marriage lived with her husband Prabhu and from this conduct of Smt. Geeta, they inferred that Smt. Geeta condoned the second marriage performed by her husband with Mst. Misri. The respondent Smt. Geeta has denied that she lived with her husband after solemnization of the marriage with Mst. Misri. She hats also denied that she ever gave her consent to her husband to marry Mst. Misri. The learned Additional District Judge has disbelieved the evidence of all the witnesses produced an behalf of the appellant to the effect that the respondent lived at the house of her husband even after the marriage with Mst. Misri. I have gone through the entire evidence on the record and I entirely agree with the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the respondent did not live with her husband or cohabit with him after the fatter performed marriage with Misri. As regards the evidence relating to the allegation that Smt. Geeta gave her consent for second marriage to her husband suffice to say that the evidence in this connection is highly vague and has been rightly rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, in my opinion, rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent never condoned the act of second marriage of her husband with Mst. Misri. The learned Additional District Judge in the circumstances facces was fully justified in passing a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. There is no force to this appeal and is dismissed Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court.