21/ 13th May 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.668 of 2009 RAM PRASAD PASWAN S/O SAUKHI PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE-MIRZAPUR, P.S.BAHADURPUR, DISTT- DARBHANGA……………………………..APPELLANT. Versus ANJALA PRABHA, WIFE OF RAM PRASAD PASWAN, D/O LATE SINGHESHWAR DAS, R/O VILLAGE-NAYA TOLA, P.S. GAIHAR, DIST- DARBHANGA………………………….... RESPONDENT ----------- For appellant:- Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah & Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocates. For respondent:- Mr. Iqbal Asif Niazi, Adv. --------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. It must be recorded at the outset that this Court also tried for amicable settlement of the dispute and parties had appeared. On assurance of the appellant that he will treat the respondent-wife properly, she went and lived with him for some time during the pendency of this appeal but she had to go back to her parental house because of alleged bad behaviour of the appellant. Thereafter, on the orders of the Court again the parties appeared and the statement of the parties as well as minor child who was also present in Court have been recorded in the order dated 12.10.2010. It discloses that the respondent also wished for the marriage to 2 survive but she was distressed due to habit of the appellant to mistreat her occasionally and assault her. According to that order, the minor child was found under trauma on account of bad behaviour of the appellant. 3. The appellant wanted divorce on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that after the marriage was solemnized on 1.3.2000, the respondent-wife deserted on 3.3.2001 and had filed a criminal case for torture. According to him marriage was not consummated and he alleged that the son born out of the marriage may be on account of extra marital relationship with one Sanjay Paswan but the latter was not made a respondent in the Matrimonial Case bearing No. 19/2001. The second ground appears to have been taken half heartedly is alleged adultery by the respondent. 4. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga has dismissed the Matrimonial Suit by judgment and order under appeal dated 9th March 2007 after recording findings on the basis of materials available on record particularly the evidence of the appellant, that he has failed to establish the allegation of desertion as well as adultery. 5. The evidence adduced on behalf of the wife has been found superior in quality and according to that she 3 was assaulted on 3.3.2001 and thereafter she was turned out from the house when she was carrying a pregnancy. The allegation on behalf of the wife is that she was being tortured due to non fulfillment of demand of a colour T.V. and Gas connection. The wife has given cogent explanation as to why she had to stay at her matrimonial house after being assaulted and turned out of the house by the appellant. 6. In the facts of the case, we find no error of facts or law in the judgment under appeal and no good reasons to interfere with the findings that the appellant failed to prove the allegation of desertion as well as adultery. 7. The learned court below has recorded that in 2007 on account of attempt for reconciliation, the respondent had agreed to go with her husband along with minor child but on the date fixed the husband did not appear and then the case was posted for final order. 8. From the order produced before us it appears that the learned Principal Judge has taken steps for execution of decree for realizing the arrears of maintenance for which an instalment of Rs.10,000/- per month has been fixed on 5.4.2011 and the appellant has also under taken to 4 deposit the said instalment every month along with payment of Rs.3500/- per month towards current maintenance for the respondent and her minor child. The appellant is in Government service as a school teacher. 9. According to the learned counsel for the respondent there is misprint in the order dated 5.4.2011 and the correct maintenance is @ Rs.3000/- per month for the respondent and Rs.600/- per month for the child which comes to Rs.3600/- per month. 10. Considering all the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record we find no good reasons to take a different view than that of the learned Principal Judge. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that the learned Principal Judge shall ensure that the undertaking given by the appellant is honoured otherwise steps shall be taken to ensure payment of arrears of maintenance as well as current maintenance every month. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)