A petitioner who has committed a wrong, such as marrying another person during the subsistence of their marriage, cannot take advantage of that wrong and seek relief under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-7-1996 in Civil Suit No. 40-A/1994 passed by I Additional District Judge, Durg by which petition u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 of the appellant was dismissed and decree for divorce as prayed by him was refused.

( 2 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the parties were married on 3-5-1984 and two children were born out of the said wedlock. It is also not in dispute that on an application filed by the respondent u/s. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree for judicial separation was passed in her favour, by judgment and decree dated 9-9-1993. The case of the petitioner/appellant is that the marriage between the parties subsisted only for 2 years and 4 months and thereafter, the parties developed bitter relations between them. This bitterness developed on account of the fact that the respondent had inflated ego, as she was an employed lady. She had also filed a false case against the appellant and his family members u/s. 498-A of the I. P. C. in which they were acquitted. Thereafter, on the application of the respondent u/s. 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, the I Additional Dist. Judge has passed a decree for judicial separation on 9-9-1993. Even thereafter, the parties never resided together, neither was it possible for them to live together. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant prayed that a decree for divorce declaring the marriage between the parties as dissolved, be passed.

( 3 ) THE respondent denied the above allegations. It was denied that the bitterness was on account of the false ego on her part. It was also denied that she had falsely lodged report due to which offence u/s. 498-A of the I. P. C. was registered against the appellant and his family members. It was further alleged by the respondent that the appellant had married Rohnibai Deshmukh D/o Donuram Deshmukh on 10th July, 1988, who is living with the appellant. The appellant and Smt. Rohnibai have two children from the said relationship. Therefore, the respondent was left with no option, but to file an application u/s. 10 of Hindu Marriage Act forjudicial separation, which was allowed. It has been urged that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the ground that the said judgment and decree dated 9-9-1998 has been passed in favour of the respondent.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Court, by the impugned-judgment, has held that since the decree dated 9-9-93 for judicial separation was passed on the application of the respondent and on the ground that the appellant had married Rohnibai Deshmukh during the life time of his first wife - the respondent Smt. Chitralekha, the wrong was committed by him, and he cannot take advantage of such a wrong and, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 23 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant is not entitled to get a decree of divorce u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has urged that since there is no resumption of cohabitation between the parties, after the decree for judicial separation dated 9-9-1993 has been passed and since there is no possibility of resumption of marital relations between the parties, the plaintiff/appellant was entitled to a decree for divorce.

( 6 ) UNDISPUTABLY, a decree dated 9-9-1993 for judicial separation was passed in Civil Suit No. 11-A of 1992 by I Additional District Judge, Durg. It is also clear from the certified copy of the said judgment and as noticed by the learned trial Court that the decree was passed mainly on the ground that the petitioner/appellant had married Rohnibai and living in adultery with her. Obviously, the above ground on which the decree of judicial separation was passed was on account of the wrongful act on the part of the appellant/petitioner. In view of above, though admittedly there is no resumption of cohabitation between the parties, after the passing of the said decree, still in view of the mandatory provisions u/s. 23 (1) (a) of the Hind