1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.206/2010 SAU. MEENA @ SHALINI CHAVAN ..VS.. HARISH CHAVAN Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 25 /10 / 2010 Heard Shri Lahoti, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original defendant. The appellant and the respondent were married on 21.5.1991. The petition was filed by the appellant against the respondent under section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was the case of the respondent husband that the behaviour of the appellant with the males, and specially with one Ramesh caused great mental torture to the respondent. According to the respondent he came in possession of a love letter written by the appellant/ wife to Ramesh. Since the appellant had apologized, it is the case of the respondent that he gave her an opportunity to mend her ways. However, it is the case of the respondent that when he returned on 17.4.2000 from a marriage along with his friend Jayant on his motorcycle to his house, he found the appellant along with Ramesh in a compromising position. The respondent pleaded that the behaviour of the appellant caused great mental torture and cruelty to the respondent. The appellant / wife denied the claim of the respondent and pleaded that the respondent was in the habit of drinking 2 liquor and beating her. It was the case of the appellant that the respondent treated her with cruelty and was maintaining extra marital relations. The appellant sought for the dismissal of the petition for grant of divorce. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record dismissed the petition filed by the respondent and held that the respondent had failed to prove any cruelty on the part of the appellant/ wife. The first appellate court, whoever, on a re-appreciation of the evidence on record held that the respondent was entitled to grant of a decree of divorce. On a perusal of the evidence tendered by respondent and his witnesses, the first appellate court held that the respondent had positively proved that the appellant was maintaining illicit relations with Ramesh and he had seen the appellant and Ramesh in a compromising position. The first appellate court held that the respondent had been successful in proving that the appellant had written a love letter to Ramesh which was marked as Exhibit 25. The first appellate court compared the documents at Exhibit 33 and Exhibit 25 to hold that there was a typical similarity between the words written in both the letters and there was a reason to believe that both the documents were written by the appellant. The first appellate court held that though the appellant had left the house of the respondent in April 2000 no steps had been taken by the appellant against the respondent till the petition was instituted by the respondent against her in April 2001. The first appellate court held that the appellant had failed to prove 3 that the respondent was addicted to liquor and was in the habit of beating her. While recording these findings, the first appellate court relied on the oral and documentary evidence rendered by the parties on record. The findings recorded by the first appellate court are pure findings of facts, based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.