Appeal from Original Order No. 466 of 2008 Against order dated 25.06.2008 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj in Matrimonial Suit No. 10/2001. … Punam Devi wife of Rakesh Kumar, resident of village Jigna Jaggarnath, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj at present Kakarkand, P.S. Gopalganj, District Gopalganj… …. Appellant/Opposite Party versus Rakesh Kumar son of late Mukh Ram Rai, resident of village Jigna, Jaggarnath, P.S. Mirganj, District Gopalganj.... …Respondent/Applicant For the Appellant: M/s. Prabhakar Divivedi and Awanish Kumar Pandey, Advocates For the Respondent: M/s Lokesh Kumar Singh and S.R.P. Sinha, Advocates. P R E S E N T The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh The Hon’ble Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan … Shiva Kirti Singh & Dr. Ravi Ranjan,JJ, Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. On behalf of the appellant, it has been argued that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj acted against the weight of evidence in accepting the case of the respondent/applicant that this appellant, his wife, deserted him after five months of the marriage. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, 2 should have accepted the case of the appellant that she never deserted her husband and lived with him prior to 15.05.2004 when she was forced to go to her parental house on account of neglect. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission, we went through discussion of the witnesses of both the parties, as made by the Family Court. The witnesses examined on behalf of the applicant/respondent are co-villagers or agnates of the respondent. They have claimed that they had gone to the village of the appellant because the husband wanted her to come and live with him, but the request for Bidai was not accepted. The applicant/respondent had also deposed that he had gone to take Bidai on many occasions, but his request was refused by the brother of the appellant. 4. The appellant was examined as O.W. 1 and her brother was examined as O.W.2. The brother of the appellant deposed that since her marriage in 1994 the appellant never came to his village till the year 2004. He pretended to be ignorant of the fact that any marriage was performed in his family. This witness himself was married in 2003 as per evidence of the appellant(O.W. 1).. 5. Considering the evidence of the witnesses, in paragraphs 5 and 10 of the judgment and order under appeal, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has highlighted the contradictions and improbabilities in the case of the appellant and on such 3 consideration he gave a finding in favour of the case of the applicant/respondent that there was long desertion in between the parties. The Principal Judge, Family Court, also noticed in paragraph 9 of the judgment and order under appeal that there was hatred in relationship between the parties and conciliation could not succeed. The matrimonial suit for divorce itself lingered for many years. 6. The learned court below while decreeing the claim for divorce considered relevant circumstances and awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 1,75,000/- in favour of the appellant. 7. Considering the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant and the entire facts and circumstances, we find no facts or circumstances to take a different view than what has been taken by the court below. Hence this appeal fails. 8. We order accordingly. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Patna High Court The 12th day of May, 2009. NAFR / SC 4