IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.658 of 2009 CHANDNI DEVI wife of Sri Sudhir Kumar @ Pappu, R/o village Purushottampur P.O. Purushottampur, P.S. Maniyari District Muzaffarpur…… .. ..Appellant. Versus SUDHIR KUMAR @ PAPPU S/o Basistha Narain Singh R/o village Purushottampur P.O. Purushottampur P.S. Maniyari, District Muzaffarpur .. .. …Respondent. ----------- 5 18.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. We had adjourned this matter on the last occasion and requested the counsels to act as conciliators and probe if there was any chance of reconciliation between the appellant wife and her husband who is the sole respondent. From the submissions made by the learned counsels it appears that the marriage has broken down irrevocably and there is no chance of their living together as husband and wife. On merits we have perused t he judgment dated 14th October 2009 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur has allowed Matrimonial Case No. 97 of 2005 and granted decree of divorce in favour of the applicant-husband who is the respondent herein. From the discussions made in that judgment in respect of all relevant issues as well as after considering the submissions on behalf of parties, we find that the issue as to whether the wife had subjected the husband and his family members to cruelty has been properly considered along with the counter issue whether the husband had ill-treated and subjected the wife to cruelty. On considering the relevant materials, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has come to a finding that even her own witnesses 2 have not supported the case of the appellant as pleaded, that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry. In her own deposition in court she has narrated a different story that after two years of marriage when she had a girl child, then her husband started torturing her. It has been considered by the court below that several cases were filed by the appellant, including a case under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act and the husband of the appellant had to remain in jail for several months. Witnesses have deposed that the appellant had once thrown hot water on her father-in-law. It further transpires that in Para-10 of her written statement the appellant has taken a stand that she had earlier filed a case for divorce being Matrimonial Case No.4 of 2002 and, hence, she was in favour of a decree of divorce on the condition that she should be given proper alimony and her daughter should remain with her husband. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has considered all the relevant materials and has allowed the decree for divorce with arrangement that the daughter shall live with her father. In a part of the matrimonial house the appellant is already residing and besides that she has been allowed alimony of Rs.1, 500/- per month. On considering the entire facts and circumstances, the pleadings and evidence, we are of the view that the learned court below has passed appropriate judgment and order which requires no interference. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine, but without any costs. 3 It goes without saying that the dues of maintenance as granted by the Family Court should be paid by the respondent- husband without any delay. The current maintenance per month should also be paid regularly. In case of default, the appellant would be at liberty to approach the court below for action in accordance with law. She will have the right of residence in the part of the house where she is presently living. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) ( C. M. Prasad,J )