1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. FIRST APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2011 (Smt. Varsha Balwant Junghare vs. Balwant Deoraoji Junghare) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. NOVEMBER 14, 2011. Heard Shri Samudra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. The Family Court, after framing proper issues, has rejected petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The finding is, allegations about cruelty practiced by the respondent – husband were not substantiated. This Court on 28th July 2011 placed the matter before the Mediator for amicable settlement and it appears that after failure report and receipt of R. & P., the matter has been placed before us. While issuing notice on 24.06.2011, this Court has indicated that the appeal may be heard finally and decided at the stage of admission. Shri Samudra, learned counsel contends that there are 7 to 8 instances in which the appellant 2 was beaten and treated with cruelty. He points out that those instances and police complaint lodged, has not been looked into. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent points out that only one police complaint was exhibited before the Family Court and the evidence on record contradicts that complaint. With the assistance of both counsel, we have perused the records. Exh. 65 is the police complaint dated 19.03.2008. The appellant – wife has stated in cross that she lodged that complaint with Ranapratap Nagar Police Station, Nagpur, about threatening to kill her and her daughter. The perusal of police complaint shows that it was lodged by the father of present appellant and in it the said father has complained against the present respondent. He has noted that his son-in-law was having suspicion and, therefore, was beating his daughter. The police has stated that the same is not cognizable and it appears that the matter was forwarded to Women Cell. We have perused the affidavit evidence adduced by present appellant. There is no specific instance deposed to, anywhere. She has examined her father and her father also has not spoken anything, particularly in relation to any particular event. The Family Court has evaluated this evidence 3 and thereafter recorded its findings. We do not see any perversity in those findings. First Appeal is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.