1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 478 of 2010 Suresh s/o Mahadeo Deshmukh ...Versus... Smt. Chhaya Suresh Deshmukh Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. C.F. Bhagwani Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mangesh V. Bute Advocate for Respondent. ... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 14.06.2011. Mr.Bhagwani, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that since at the instance of wife/respondent criminal cases under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code have been filed against the husband/appellant and those are pending against him, the same can be stated to be a good ground to claim divorce on the ground of cruelty, which has not been considered by the courts below and, therefore, there is perversity in the finding recorded by the courts below which enables this Court to interfere in the present second appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant then argued that the position is irretrievable and the respondent/wife also does not want to cohabit with the respondent/husband and in that 2 view of the matter all attempts including that of mediation have failed and, therefore, the present second appeal should be admitted. 3. Per contra, Mr.Bute, learned counsel for the respondent/wife opposed the appeal and argued that there is finding of fact recorded by the courts below and the charge-sheet under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code against the respondent is pending. When the criminal court has not yet decided the fate of the charge- sheet, no adverse inference can be drawn against the wife. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgments and orders recorded by the courts below. Having heard learned counsel for rival parties, at the outset, I find that the criminal case filed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is not yet decided and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that this Court should draw any adverse inference for cruelty against the wife. 5. Insofar as the finding recorded by the court below about eligibility of the husband to get divorce from the wife, I find that the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence on record and have come to conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to divorce. Those are the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below and this Court does not find any perversity with the same. To sum up, the findings of facts cannot be 3 interfered in second appeal jurisdiction. No substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal. I find no merit in this appeal. S.A. No. 478 of 2010 is dismissed. Judge /TA/