1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.08.05, passed by the Family Court, Jodhpur, rejecting the petition seeking divorce, preferred by the appellant against the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act" hereinafter) .

2. The appellant and respondent entered into marriage on 16.02.1993, at Jodhpur. Out of the wedlock, their daughter Khushbu and son Krishna were born. It is alleged that quarrelsome and stubborn behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant, resulted in separation of the spouses and the respondent left the company of the appellant on 18.03.1997. A first information report was lodged by the respondent against the appellant in Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur on 17.9.1997, alleging commission of offences under Section 498 A, 406 of IPC. However, the spouses entered into a compromise, accordingly, final report was submitted by the police. It is alleged that the compromise was entered into on the condition that the appellant shall be taking respondent along with children to Bayatu, where the appellant was posted as teacher, away from the company of his old aged parents staying at Jodhpur. Adhering to the condition of compromise so as to keep marital life intact the appellant started living with the respondent and children at Bayatu. According to the appellant the respondent did not mend her ways and continued her stubborn and quarrelsome behaviour unabatedly. She raised a demand that the appellant should pay his entire salary to her and he should not pay a single penny to his old aged parents staying at Jodhpur.It is further alleged that one day the respondent picked up quarrel with the appellant and started abusing him in filthy language. She insisted for return to the her parents' house. In the meantime, the mother of the respondent also came to Bayatu and aggravated the problem further. The respondent and her mother abused the appellant in presence of crowd of neighbours. The mother of the respondent also insisted that the appellant should pay entire salary to the respondent. The respondent's mother left Bayatu on the same day, but, after her return the respondent became much more furious and started beating and ill treating the children, particularly, in presence of relatives and friends. Thereafter, on 18.08.1997 when the appellant was away from home at the school where he was employed, the respondent left the matrimonial home. She also left the children behind unattended. The appellant went to Jodhpur along with the children and persuaded the respondent for return to the matrimonial home but, all his efforts proved futile. The respondent was not even ready to keep the son who was just four years of age with her. However, after intervention of her mother she agreed to keep the son with her but, declined for return to the matrimonial home.On 15.04.1998, the respondent lodged yet another FIR against the appellant and his family members. It is alleged that in the said FIR, she levelled baseless and false allegations against the appellant and his family members including the allegation in terms that "fnukad 15-8-1997 dh lka; eq>s esjs ifr us Nkrh ij cSBdj esjs eqag es tcjnLrh vkB&nl tgjhyh xksfy;ka eq>s tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls Mky nh esjs fojks/k djus ij mijksDr lHkh yksxksa us esjs gkFk iSj tcjnLrh idM+ fy;s xksfy;ka f[kykus dh otg ls esjh rch;r cgqr T;knk fcxM+us yxh rks os ,dne ?kcjk x;sA eq>s ,fcy VscysV [kkus ds fy, dgka esjs euk djus ij mUgksaus ekjihV dj eq>s ,fcy ,scysV f[kyk nhA"Consequently, the appellant was arrested by the police and remained in the judicial custody till the date he was bailed out. The allegations levelled regarding the appellant forcefully administering the poison to the respondent were found to be false, however, the challan was filed against the appellant for offences under Section 498 A, 406 and 323 of IPC. After trial, the appellant was acquitted of the charges by the trial court vide judgment dated 23.0