Husband is not entitled to get Divorce if Husband has made impossible for wife to reside with him after decree for restitution of conjugal right
If the husband, by his own acts, has made resumption of cohabitation impossible or unworkable by living with another woman as husband and wife or in a domestic relationship and he continues to live with such another woman even after the decree under Section 9 was passed at the behest of the first wife, the husband's behaviour ought to be treated as a "wrong" or "misconduct" within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act and thereby disentitling him to seek adecree of divorce under Section 13(1-A) of the Act. It is not the case of the husband, when he approached the Family Court in the second round, that after the decree under Section 9 of the Act was granted in favour of the wife, he discontinued to stay with Sunita and approached the present appellant toresume cohabitation. In fact in the pleadings before the Family Court it was his case in support of petition under Section 13(1-A) of the Act that he continued to live in a separate residence at Pratibha Society, Dhankavadi, Pune. He also claimed that even if he was a defaulting party, he was entitled to apply for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1-A) of the Act. As has been well settled by the decisions set
