IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.45 of 2010 DR. DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA, son of Ram Kirti Prasad, resident of village Gauriya Patti, P.S Bagaha Town, District Bettiah (West Champaran)….. ….Appellant/Petitioner Versus KIRAN DEVI wife of Dr. Dileep Kumar Gupta, daughter of Surendra Prasad, resident of Sikandarpur, P.S. Muzaffarpur Town, District-Muzaffarpur… Respondent/Opposite Party For the Appellant: Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ram Vikram Singh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. D. Choudhary, Advocate Mr.Suresh Kumar Mishra, Advocate …………………….. 10 27.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment under appeal. The appellant sought divorce from his wife- respondent on the basis of three grounds/allegations. Those have been dealt with in Paragraph 9 and subsequent paragraphs. The learned Family Court has discussed all the relevant materials and has negated all the three allegations. The first allegation was that the respondent is of unsound mind. The second allegation was that she was cruel towards the appellant and during the relevant period 2 of about ten months after marriage she did not permit sexual relationship. The third ground is that the appellant had suspicion that the respondent had relationship with some other person. On going through the discussion of the evidence and submissions of the parties, we find that the findings are sound and based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. On behalf of the appellant, it was strenuously submitted that cruelty at times may consist of mental cruelty which cannot be proved by direct evidence and has to be inferred from the circumstances alleged. The submission is based upon Supreme Court Judgments and cannot be disputed in law. But in the facts of the case, it is apparent that the appellant wanted to take advantage of his own wrongs on account of which he is facing criminal proceeding. One of the exhibits, i.e., Ext. X/2 is a letter by him to his superior officer in which he has claimed apology and has tried to explain that teeth of his wife unintentionally got broken in the scuffle. Levelling false allegations against a sane person as found by the trial court who had the occasion to examine the respondent, that she is of unsound mind is an 3 act of cruelty by the appellant himself. The third allegation is that the appellant has suspicion that the wife has some relationship with another person. Absolutely, no material worth considering has come in support of both these allegations. The second ground that the respondent was cruel by denying sexual relationship stands demolished by his own admission in cross-examination that soon after filing of the suit in 2003, he got a son from the respondent from the wedlock. We find that absolutely no ground is made out to doubt the correctness or legality of the judgment under appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed at this stage under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC. No cost. Sanjay-II (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)