SA/44/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 44 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2765 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SURESHBHAI KHODABHAI SABAD - Appellant(s) Versus LAXMIBEN SURESHBHAI SABAD - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARSHIT S TOLIA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Defendant(s) : 1, MR BHUMIT S SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 23/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and SA/44/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT order dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Morbi in Regular Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2007 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2007 passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Morbi in H.M.P. No. 8 of 2004 was confirmed. 2.0 The facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present appeal are as under; 2.1 The marriage between the appellant, original opponent and the respondent, original applicant, took place on 24.02.1998 at Morbi. In 2004, the respondent filed an application being H.M.P. No. 8 of 2004 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Court of learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Morbi. The appellant filed his written statement vide Exhibit – 13. 2.2 The trial Court framed the issues. On completion of the pleadings, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. SA/44/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the said decree, the appellant preferred an appeal before the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Morbi. The lower appellate Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, this second appeal. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The trial Court, after duly appreciating the evidence, has recorded the finding that the respondent was mentally as well as physically tortured by the appellant and that it was not possible for the parties to continue their married life. In other words, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the said decree of the trial Court. 4.0 Considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the view that both the Courts below were completely justified in passing the impugned judgment and SA/44/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT decree. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises within the meaning of Section 100 of the C.P.C. in this appeal. 5.0 In the premise, the Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, the civil application also stands disposed of. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*