1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2006 (Shyam Pandurang Nayase & Anr. vs. Archana Gangadhar Bhamra & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 16, 2009. Heard Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the appellant – original defendant and Smt. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs. The trial Court has decreed the Special Civil Suit No. 274 of 1992 instituted by the present respondents for recovering damages for breach of promise to marry. The amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with 10% interest has been awarded as damages. The present appellant challenged said judgment and decree in Regular Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2001 and 5th Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Amravati, by judgment dated 31.3.2006 dismissed that appeal. Second Appeal is being pressed on Question Nos. (iii), (iv) and (ix) in the memo of appeal as substantial questions of law. Question No. 3 is about the appreciation by Courts below of letter dated 14.9.1992 at Exh. 2 106, question No. (iv) is in relation to not examining the friends and relatives by the respondents and question No. (ix) is about denial of opportunity to present appellant to bring on record his subsequent acquittal in criminal prosecution instituted by the respondents. I have heard Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the appellants at length. The perusal of judgments show that the necessary issues were framed and the trial Court found that dowry demanded in October 1992 was the cause for breaking of marriage. The appellate Court has maintained it. The letter Exh. 106 is written on 13.9.1992 in the background of meeting of the community held on 13.9.1992 alleging that in that meeting, the relatives of respondents defamed the present appellants because of demand of dowry. The lower appellate Court as also the trial Court has appreciated said communication and found it doubtful whether it was forwarded or not. It is to be noticed that just before that meeting on 7.9.1992, the respondents had forwarded Exh. 67 dated 7.9.1992 seeking details/ clarification, mode and manner in which marriage was to be performed. After appreciation of evidence on record, the appellate Court has found that 3 defendant No.1 son did not enter the witness box and his father was only examined. It was further found that defendant No.2 in para 23 of his cross examination admitted that neither the plaintiff nor anybody else on his behalf alleged in the meeting dated 13.9.1992 that the appellants were demanding dowry. The admission has been relied upon by the appellate Court to contradict Exh. 106 which contains reference to demand of dowry in meeting dated 13.9.1992. It is found that this letter does not inspire any confidence. The appellants sought to rely upon meeting dated 13.9.1992, alleged demand expressed in that meeting and again wanted to rely upon communication at Exh. 106. The said communication has been, therefore, rightly disbelieved by the Courts below. It is apparent that the issue pertains to domain of appreciation of evidence and no substantial question of law arises on that count. The consideration of admission of defendant No.2 in para 13 of the judgment with his conduct in para 11 and allegations in para 10, all show correct approach of the lower appellate Court. The evidence on record has been appreciated and it was found that there was demand of dowry in October 1992, which led to breach of promises to 4 marry. In view of this discussion, it is apparent that question No. (iv) and question No. (ix) are totally irrelevant. The acquittal in criminal prosecution may be for various reasons and has got no bearing on Civil adjudication. I, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law arising in this Second Appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.