IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.69 of 2010 MAHENDRA SINGH, S/o Raj Ballabh Singh, Resident of Village- Bikramganj, P.S. Bikramganj, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.... ....(Petitioner).....Appellant Versus NEELAM DEVI W/o Mahendra Singh, daughter of Dwarika Singh R/o Village-Jamuada P.O. -Karma, P.S. Suryapura, Distt.-Rohtas at Sasaram.. ..... (Opposite Party) Respondent ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Umashankar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Kr. Srivastava, Advocate .............. 13 12.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-wife. By the judgment and order under appeal dated 11.1.2010 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sasaram, Rohtas has dismissed the Matrimonial Case No. 69/2008 after recording a finding that the appellant could not succeed in proving either of the two grounds raised for grant of divorce - cruelty and adultery. In order to find out the correctness of the findings and views expressed by the learned Principal Judge, we went through the evidence of AW-1, Mahendra Singh as well as remaining witness AW-2, Raj Ballabh Singh, who is father of the applicant. The only allegation made by the appellant in respect of cruelty is that his wife left him on 2 13.05.2007 and her behaviour with her in-laws was not good and she had lodged a case under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code in which the appellant was in jail for four months and his father was in jail for two months. In respect of adultery, the appellant has not impleaded the alleged adulterer one Pintu Singh which is required under rules framed by this Court for matrimonial suits. In his examination-in-chief, he has claimed that on a particular date after talking to the respondent on phone, when he went to meet her he found Pintu Singh was present there and his wife allegedly told him that she will not go with him but she will live with Pintu Singh. In cross-examination, he has admitted that Pintu Singh is known to him since before his marriage and is close to his as well as to the family members of the respondent. He has cited only one incident to support the allegation of adultery that at 9.30 p.m., once he saw his wife on the motorcycle of Pintu Singh and he has denied the suggestion that the name of Pintu Singh has been dragged because he was working as mediator to resolve the dispute between the husband and wife. The evidence of AW-2, the father of the appellant, is of general nature. He has merely said that 3 behaviour of the respondent was not good and that he had to go to jail in a case registered under Section 498 (A) of the I.P.C. He has not supported the specific incidents of cruelty as alleged in the plaint obviously because the appellant himself did not support those incidents. The father of the appellant has not whispered a word about adultery or even any kind of relationship between the respondent and Pintu Singh. In the facts of the case, we find that the judgment of the learned Principal Judge suffers from no factual error or error of law. The appeal is found to be without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost in respect of this appeal. Sanjay-II (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)