Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-9-2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 12-A/2011 by the Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (CG). By the impugned judgment and decree, a petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act, 1955") for dissolution of the marriage by passing a decree of divorce has been dismissed by the said court.

2. The appellant/petitioner (husband) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage with respondent (wife) by passing a decree of divorce. The petitioner took the ground of cruelty and adultery. In addition to this, he also took a ground that after passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on 15-9-2009, there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between them for a period of more than one year.

3. The respondent filed her reply and denied the allegations made by the petitioner. She completely denied the allegations relating to cruelty and adultery. So far as non-restitution of conjugal rights is concerned, it was contended that as per earlier compromise decree, the petitioner had to come to her place for taking her, however, the petitioner came on the day when the daughter of son of her sister had died, therefore, she had said that she will not go on that day. Thus, it was not a denial.

4. The learned Judge, Family Court held that so far as grounds relating to cruelty and adultery are concerned, earlier Civil Suit No. 39-A/2008 was also filed by the petitioner on these grounds and in the said civil suit a compromise took place between the parties on 6-9-2009 before the Lok Adalat and instead of passing a decree of divorce on the said grounds, an award for restitution of conjugal rights was passed on compromise on the following terms:-

^^vkosnd fnukad 15@09@2009 dks vukosfndk dks ysus ds fy, mlds fuokl LFkku ij vkdj mls llEeku vius lkFk j[kus ds fy, vkosxkA

mHk; i{k ,d lkFk jguk r; djds izdj.k lekIr djk jgsa gSa^^ (See Ex.P/5)

5. Therefore, by necessary implication, after passing of the said award, the above grounds which were taken in the earlier civil suit would stand condoned.

6. Thus, the learned Judge, Family Court, had only framed an issue on the ground taken under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Act, 1955.

7. The parties were allowed to lead their evidence.

8. The Family Court recorded a finding that the petitioner did not properly comply the terms of the award and the efforts made by the petitioner for cohabitation with the respondent was not bona fide. Therefore, even after passing of the statutory period after the aforesaid award for restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner was not entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Act, 1955. The petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, was dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

9. Mr. T.R. Dahire, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner has argued that the findings in relations to the efforts made by the petitioner are not proper; the petitioner had made sincere efforts for bringing the respondent from her house, but the respondent denied to come with the petitioner; therefore, the impugned decree deserves to be set aside and a decree of divorce under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Act, 1955 should be passed in favour of the petitioner.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Vinod Tekam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment and decree passed by the family court.

11. We have heard counsel for the parties.

12. It is not disputed that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 1989 and the respondent is residing in Panjari Plant, Raigarh. It is also not disputed that children of the appellant namely Nageswar (son - 17 years) and Reena (daughter - 11 years) are also residing with the respondent in Panjari Plant, Raigarh. It is also not disputed that earlier to the present civil suit, the petitione