IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.280 of 2009 NAVIN KUMAR PASWAN S/O SRI NAWAL KISHORE PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE-MALLAHCHAKIA, P.S.BUXAR MUFASSIL, DISTT- BUXAR…………………….APPLICANT…………………………...APPELLANT Versus SMT.SHANTI DEVI @ RANI, D/O MUNESHWAR PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE- RAJPUR, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTT-BUXAR…………………………...OPPOSITE PARTY………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT -------------- 6. 29-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order under appeal whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Buxar has dismissed Divorce Case No. 42 of 2003 preferred by the appellant. In spite of notice nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent-wife. 2. The facts available on record show that appellant was married with the respondent in the year 1997. For some reasons the respondent had gone to her parents and the appellant preferred a Suit bearing no. 42 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights. The differences were settled through conciliation and Lok Adalat. The respondent-wife went and lived with the appellant and while she was carrying pregnancy, allegedly she was tortured and had to return to her parents in the year 2002. She gave birth to a son in the year 2003 and she filed a case - 2 - for torture against the husband and others and also a case for maintenance. Thereafter, the appellant preferred the present suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of alleged cruelty and desertion. 3. After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties and analyzing the circumstances as well, the court below has held that the appellant had failed to substantiate the allegations of cruelty and desertion. Accordingly, the suit for divorce has been dismissed by the order under appeal. 4. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the respondent has wrongly alleged that this appellant wants to marry again for dowry because after the marriage with respondent he got appointment as a constable and started earning well. It has been submitted that the allegation that appellant got a Government job after marriage has been denied by mother of the appellant in her deposition. However, admittedly, the appellant himself did not deny this allegation in his own deposition. It has not been shown to us as to when the appellant got service as a - 3 - constable. After considering the entire facts and circumstances and particularly the deposition of the parties, we find no error or illegality in the judgment and order of the court below. Hence, this appeal is dismissed summarily but without cost. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Gopal Prasad,J.)