IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.600 of 2008 Renu Devi wife of Samendra Thakur @ Shailendra Thakur daughter of Bachan Thakur, resident of village Bhithiya, O. P. Korauna, PS. Jehanabad, Dist- Jehananbad. …(Opposite party no. 1).. Appellant Versus 1. Samendra Thakur @ Shailendra Thakur son of Ram Bachan Thakur, resident of village- Ghosi, P.S. Ghosi, Dist- Jehanabad.. ….(Applicant)..Respondent Ist Party. 2. Manoj Thakur son of Devendra Thakur, resident of Mohalla- Haibatpur Bas Ghat Town Patna, Dist. Patna. …(opposite party no.2) Respondent 2nd Party ------------ For the appellant : Mr. Kamla Pd. Rai, Adv. : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Adv. For the opposite party no. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Adv. ----------- 6. 09.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent no. 2. In spite of notice, respondent no. 1, the husband of the appellant has chosen not to appear and contest this appeal which is directed against the order of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad dated 1st September, 2008 whereby he allowed Matrimonial Case 2 No. 43 of 2007 filed by respondent no. 1, the husband of the appellant for divorce on the ground of adultery. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that marriage was performed long back in the year 1992 and only when the husband started neglecting the appellant, she had to file a maintenance case in the year 2005 and a complaint case was also filed in the same year but the same was compromised in the year 2006. But thereafter again she was subjected to torture and she had to file another complaint case on 27.4.2007 and in retaliation the present matrimonial case was filed seeking divorce on false allegation of adultery. It is pointed out that only the respondent no. 1 has deposed on the point of adultery and he has given details to claim that he was an eye witness but such particulars of incident of this nature was never mentioned in the application/plaint, although respondent no. 2 was made a party with general allegation that the appellant was having illicit relationship with respondent no.2. On going through lower court records which has been called for, it is found that the pleadings are vague and the occurrence which the respondent no. 1 alleged in 3 his evidence was never mentioned in the plaint and his deposition on such an important matter remains uncorroborated by any other reliable evidence. Having considered the explanation of respondent no. 1 for not giving details in the plaint, we find the same unreliable and unacceptable. In the facts of the case, it is clear that after having three children from the marriage, the respondent no. 1 has chosen to file matrimonial case for divorce on bald allegation only because he created a situation where the appellant had to claim maintenance and file cases for torture. We have gone through the discussions made by learned Principal Judge, Family Court on the issue of adultery. In our view, he has accepted the claim of the husband that he saw the adulterous relationship without proper analysis and scrutiny of the evidence. The evidence on record on the issue of adultery does not inspire confidence. Hence, we have no alternative but to reverse the finding in respect of adultery. In such a situation, there remains no other good ground to sustain the order of decree of divorce and the same is accordingly set aside. 4 The appeal is allowed; consequently the matrimonial case is dismissed. But as the respondent no. 1 has not chosen to appear, we shall award no costs. kanchan ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)