IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.482 of 2009 RAJNISH, S/O SRI RAM NIRANJAN SINGH, R/O MOHALLA DINKAR NAGAR, P.O. DIGHA, P.S.DIGHA, DIST- PATNA……………………………….PETITIONER-APPELLANT Versus ANAMIKA SINGH, W/O RAJNISH, D/O SRI RAJ KISHORE SINGH, R/O NEAR K.K.JHA, NIL KAMAL, NEW AREA, SIKANDARPUR, P.S.TOWN, DISTRICT, MUZAFFARPUR………………....RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT ----------- For appellant:- Sri Kapildeo Singh, Advocate For respondent:- Sri Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr.Adv Sri Manindra Kishore Singh, Adv. ------------ 15. 30-July-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the sole respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 28.07.2009 whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur has dismissed Matrimonial Divorce Case No. 500 of 2007/50 of 2009 filed by appellant- husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The grounds for seeking divorce were cruelty by the respondent- wife and desertion. 3. Before reverting to the relevant issues on merits it may be briefly indicated that when attempts for amicable resolution of dispute between husband and wife failed, this Court made another attempt to find out whether 2 they could separate amicably. The appellant does not want to live with his wife but as per direction of the Court he has filed a supplementary affidavit that he can relinquish his share in his ancestral house in favour of respondent who is admittedly working as Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Shikshak in the ancestral village of the appellant- Kauria in East Champaran along with her two minor daughters aged about 11 and 9 years respectively but except giving full verbal assurance that he will take care of all the needs of the daughters including expense for their marriage in future, the appellant has not indicated any specific and definite commitment such as depositing any particular amount in fixed deposits for the two daughters. Rather, he has indicated that his monthly salary is only Rs.6,000/- because he is a contract teacher in Government High School, Patnacity. Since the respondent- wife is concerned with the future of her two daughters, she is totally opposed to the proposal of divorce. We find that the parties cannot come to any agreed amicable resolution either to stay together or to separate by decree of divorce on consent with agreed alimony. 4. Hence, the matter has to be decided on 3 merits. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the findings of the learned Principal Judge in respect of the material issues i.e., issue no.3- Has the respondent deserted the petitioner ? and issue no.4- Does the act of the respondent amount to cruelty ? The submissions on the issue of desertion are only to the effect that relevant facts and evidence have not been properly considered by the learned Principal Judge. On going through the detailed discussions made by the learned Principal Judge in respect of issue no.3, we find that the learned Principal Judge has taken into consideration the entire relevant evidence before recording his findings that the petitioner (appellant herein) is himself not sure that the wife has deserted him since 28th of October 1999. The evidence of witnesses also shows that after 28th October 1999, the respondent-wife came to the matrimonial house on several occasions and ultimately she is living in the matrimonial house at the ancestral village and working there as a teacher with the consent of her in-laws. In such facts and circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere with the finding in respect of issue no. 3. As a result, the appellant cannot succeed in claiming divorce on the ground of desertion 4 by the respondent-wife. So far as issue no.4 is concerned, the nutshell of the allegations made by the appellant is that while residing with her in-laws, the respondent did not like the parents of her husband and his relatives and did not pay due respect to them. He has levelled allegation that she used to abuse him and his relations and once physically assaulted her mother-in-law. On this issue, learned Principal Judge has considered the evidence of father-in-law as well as mother-in- law of the respondent. They have not supported the allegation of abuse and the father-in-law has levelled a simple allegation that his daughter-in-law used to tell him that she cannot cook food for such a big family. There is no dispute that earlier for about 4 years after marriage when the appellant was unemployed, she lived with him and two daughters were born from the marriage. The mother-in-law of the respondent has not alleged anything specific against the daughter-in-law but has only stated that so long she lived with them, the couple were quarrelling and as a result, at times the respondent broke her bangle and also washed the vermillion mark but in conclusion, she has deposed that she has no complaint or grievance against her daughter-in-law. Thus, after considering 5 the relevant evidence in detail the Principal Judge has come to a finding that the petitioner could not prove cruelty against the wife. 5. After perusing materials on record and hearing the parties, we find that the case of the appellant (petitioner) has rightly been decided by the learned Principal Judge on the basis of evidence properly appraised by him. Even on the basis of larger circumstances, it appears that the appellant has developed greater sensitivity after he got employed and the demand of looking after large number of members in the family generally leads to differences. However, conduct of the respondent-wife shows that instead of entering into any litigation of torture she has been living in the matrimonial house at the ancestral village and earning as a teacher to take care of her two daughters. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no good reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. Therefore, the appeal fails. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. In view of the stand taken by the appellant that he will permit the respondent-wife to live at the ancestral 6 house and he shall also take care of all the needs of the two daughters including their marriage, we have not ventured to order for payment of any maintenance to the wife and daughters of the appellant. It is expected that the appellant shall honour his commitment as appearing from the supplementary affidavit. However, in case he backs out from his commitment, it will be open for the respondent to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)