1. This appeal, by the husband, is directed against an order of dismissal of his petition under S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the appellant-husband is that he was married with respondent 1 Smt. Raj Kumari Devi in June, 1955 and the Rokshadi of respondent 1 was performed in the month of February, 1964. After the Rokshadi respondent 1 stayed in the petitioners house for three days only, whereafter she was taken away by respondent 3 Narsingh Prasad Singh, who is the son of her Phupha. Respondent 1 was again brought to the petitioners village Nimi in May, 1964 and this time she stayed there for about a month, whereafter respondent 3 again took her, firstly to his own village on the ground of illness of his mother and from there to her fathers place. After one and a half month she was again brought to Nimi and she stayed in the house of the petitioner, sometime at Nimi and sometime at Patna for a total period of one year. In Jan. 1966 respondent 1 again went to her fathers place and returned to her husband after staying there for more than a year. By the conduct of respondent 1 the petitioner and his family members got an impression that she did not like to live with the petitioner and was eager to return to her Naihar or village Netar, the village of respondent 3. The apprehension of the petitioner further was that she was having adulterous intercourse with respondents. This apprehension was also based on the circumstance that she was very cold in her conjugal relationship with the petitioner and never participated willingly in any act of sex with him, the result whereof was that the petitioner never had the pleasure of married life. It was alleged by the petitioner that she used to write letters to her father making false allegations of ill-treatment.

2. The further case of the petitioner was that in October, 1968 the father of respondent 1, i.e., respondent 2 came to Nimi along with respondent 3 and wanted to take her with him, but the petitioner did not allow them to take her. However, respondents 2 and 3 again came to village Nimi after a few (Jays thereof and took her away, when the petitioner and his father were away at Patna in connection with the treatment of the petitioners mother. It has been stated on \behalf of the petitioner that respondent 1 did not return to his house thereafter, even though repeated attempts of bringing her were made by his father. In such circumstances, the petitioner decided to take action for divorce against respondent 1 in March, 1975. Respondent 2, however, could get an idea about it and stole a march on the petitioner by getting a criminal case instituted by her daughter against him for his prosecution under S. 494 and other Sections of the I.P.C. on the allegation that he had married another girl, namely, Kanti Devi daughter of Jadunandan Prasad, on 30-4-1975 and since then he had been ill-treating her. When the petitioner came to know of this criminal case, he made enquiries about the said Kanti Devi and came to know that she was a lady of easy virtue because of which she was disowned by her parents and was living with her maternal uncle. He also learnt that she had two abortions at the place of her maternal uncle. The petitioner emphatically denied about his marriage with this girl.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and contested the petition of the petitioner. Respondent 3 had also filed a written statement separately denying all the allegations made against him.

4. The case of respondents 1 and 2 is that respondent 1 was residing at her Sasural along with the petitioner since after her Rokshadi and she was quite faithful to her husband. As a result of the consummation of their marriage she also got a son named Rajnish alias Munna through the petitioner and both the husband and wife lived together in the house of the petitioner till February, 1975. She has denied to have ever gone with respondent 3 to hi