FA/302/2018 of BIRENDRA KUMAR Vs MALTI DEVI on 30 June 2026

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 26.04.2018 and decree dated 07.05.2018 (decree signed on 07.05.2018), passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum- Family Court, Ramgarh in M.T.S. No. 21 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the appellant - husband for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(ia)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/wife, has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case, as stated in the impugned order, is that appellant and respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on 24.06.91 at village Chandrapura, District Bokaro and after marriage respondent-wife started living with her husband at village Koto, PS Patratu, District Ramgarh. From their wedlock they have been blessed with three children namely Chanchla Kumari aged about 17 years daughter, Ritika Kumari aged about 11 years daughter and Prince @ Harsh aged about 7 years at the time of filing of the suit.

3. It is stated that the father of the appellant-petitioner was an employee of Electricity Board and from his retiral benefit he built a house over the land situated in village Koto, PS patratu, District Ramgarh purchased in the name of his wife Champa Devi, who is the mother of the appellant-petitioner and mother-in-law of the respondent and respondent is still residing in the said house but all alone ousting the appellant-petitioner and his parents from the said house.

4. It is further stated that in the year 2005, there was an abrupt change in the behavior of respondent-wife due to instigation of her parents and brother of respondent namely Vijay Kumar Sao leading to some differences between the husband and wife because his wife was threatening him to oust old parents from the said house but the appellant- petitioner disagreed to that resulting in bitterness in their relationship and respondent-wife started non-cooperation in the family affairs due to said reason. The quarrel continued between the appellant-petitioner and respondent-wife then petitioner being an employee of SBI and peace loving and law abiding citizen started living with his parents in a rented house at village Sounda, PS Patratu, District Ramgarh and since the year 2005 appellant-petitioner was deserted by the respondent and deprived of his conjugal life.

5. It is further stated that the fact of desertion has been admitted by the respondent in G.R. Case No. 2114/05 filed u/s 498A of IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act and also in Maintenance Case filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C in the year 2007 and she is getting maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month from the appellant petitioner, at the time of filing of the suit.

6. It is contended that the respondent is guilty of deliberate and intentional desertion of appellant-petitioner coupled with mental, physical and financial cruelty as well. The house was built by the father of the petitioner and after ouster and dispossession of other family members she let the house on rent and getting income from the rent of said house @Rs. 10,000/- per month and by suppressing this fact she obtained an order of Maintenance. Since the appellant petitioner is admittedly living separately since 2005 from the respondent due to her conduct of cruelty and desertion. So, he is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage.

7. Allegation has been made that the respondent attempted to kill him by poisoning, so that she can get the job of her husband in the Bank, which amounts to cruelty and further attempt of amicable settlement failed.

8. It is stated that the cause of action arose on 24.06.1991, which is the date of their marriage and in the year 2003 when the appellant-petitioner and his parents were ousted from the house premises and also since 2005 when admittedly the appellant-petitioner was deserted depriving him of his conjugal life and day to day thereafter.

9. On being noticed, the respondent appeared before the learned family court and filed written statement.

10. It is denied by the respondent that she has ousted the appellant and his parents from the house situated at village Koto, rather she being the 'Bahu' is living in the said house with her husband and her in-laws and her behavior towards her husband and in-laws are quite normal and she has always given proper regards to them.

11. It is further stated that the house where the respondent is living is in joint possession of her husband and in-laws and since the appellant-petitioner is posted in SBI, Sounda Branch, so he has taken room on rent and some time they are living there and some time with the respondent. Further, the petitioner always remained in physical and sexual contact with the respondent, so there is no question of any desertion and cruelty and they are leading conjugal life peacefully. It is wrong to say that she is getting rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the house situated at Koto. The petitioner has never given any Sanha in the police station regarding administering poison to him by the respondent to get service of her husband, rather the respondent was subjected to cruelty by the petitioner. The suit has been filed with ulterior motive and mala fide intention and the respondent is always ready to settle the case amicably for establishing good relationship with the petitioner and is always ready to cooperate with the petitioner in making the good relationship.

12. The learned family court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after hearing the respective parties and analyzing the evidence adduced on behalf of both the sides, held that the appellant-husband has not been able to prove the fact of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife and accordingly dismissed the suit, against which the present appeal has been filed. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-husband:

13. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the factual aspect which was available before the learned family court supported by the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment impugned is perverse, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

14. It has been submitted that the issue of cruelty as also desertion has not been taken into consideration in the right perspective.

15. Submission has been made that on the point of cruelty and desertion, there is direct evidence that the respondent ousted the appellant as well as their family from the house, which was constructed by the father of the appellant but that aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned family court.

16. The respondent had filed a criminal case against the appellant and his family members under Section 498A/34 IPC in which they were acquitted, against which the respondent filed appeal but that was dismissed.

17. Further, the learned family court has brushed aside the evidence produced by the appellant and has given no specific finding with respect to the evidences produced by the appellant.

18. Further, even the learned family court did not take into consideration the fact that respondent-wife has committed mental and physical cruelty towards appellant-husband and his family members by lodging forged case in which they were acquitted.

19. Further, admittedly, the parties are living separately for a long period of time and there is no chance of restoration of conjugal right, but this aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned judgment.

20. Submission has been made that the relationship of husband and wife is on the thread of trust which itself has been broken and there is no chance of re-union.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned suffers from error and as such it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Submission on behalf of respondent-wife:

22. Submission has been made that the appellant has miserably failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife. Neither the parents nor the children of the appellant have been examined to corroborate the statement of appellant. Contrarily, the respondent-wife at paragraph 26 and their daughter Ritika Kumar have said that the appellant is visiting regularly having relation with her wife. So far allegation of administering poison to the appellant by the respondent is concerned, in cross- examination at paragraph 23 he himself admits that he was administered sleeping pills in excess quantity and he has not taken any medical help and further no written complaint was ever filed by him in this regard.

23. Submission has been made that it is a false allegation that the respondent-wife has ousted the petitioner-appellant [husband] from the house, rather the truth is that the appellant is an employee of SBI, Saunda Branch and he took room on rent there and sometimes lives and in vacation and holidays comes in the paternal house, where the respondent-wife resides and remains in physical relation with her also. There is no element of cruelty or desertion. The respondent-wife has further denied to receive any amount as rent.

24. Further submission has been made that the respondent-wife is always ready and willing to lead conjugal life with the appellant-husband.

Analysis:

25. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment as also the trial court record.

26. The admitted fact herein is that the suit for divorce has been filed on the ground of cruelty and desertion i.e., by filing an application under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and accordingly, evidence have been led and argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the

appellant, however, the suit was decided against the appellant/wife.

27. From the pleadings available on record and the arguments advanced on behalf of parties, the issues which require consideration are as to: I. Whether the judgment and decree of divorce passed on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act and/or on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) requires interference?

28. This Court, in order to appreciate the testimony available on record, has gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, as available in the impugned order.

29. In this case the petitioner-appellant has adduced three witnesses in support of his case.

30. PW 1 is Sanjay Kumar Singh, who has deposed that marriage of Birendra Kumar was solemnized with Malti Devi on 24.06.1991 according to Hindu rites and rituals and from their wedlock they have been blessed with two daughters and one son. It is further stated that respondent Malti Devi captured the house of in-laws constructed on 16 decimals of land purchased in the name of her mother-in-law from the retiral benefit of her father-in-law in the year 2005 and expelled all her in-laws and husband from there and thereafter, let it out to the tenants and from the tenant she is realizing rent. Appellant and his parents are living in a rented quarter of CCL and respondent threatened them that if they will come to the house captured by her, she will file a rape case against them.

31. It has further been deposed that respondent had also filed a case of cruelty against her husband and in-laws for demand of dowry which could not be proved by her and ultimately the accused persons were acquitted in the said case. Respondent had filed a case of Maintenance in the court and she is getting maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month and petitioner-appellant is paying the maintenance. Respondent is living separately from the petitioner-appellant since the year 2005 and she has only love for money and property and she has spoiled the life of petitioner-appellant, so he has filed this divorce case.

32. In his cross-examination, he said that affidavit has been prepared by his lawyer but he knows the contents of affidavit as Birendra Singh is his neighbour. He was not present on the occasion of marriage of appellant and respondent. Elder daughter of petitioner namely Chanchal is aged about 18 years, and 2nd daughter Ritika is aged about 16 years. He cannot say the name of house owners whose houses are situated near the house of parents of petitioner. He doesn‟t know the name of mother of petitioner. He further said that respondent had threatened her husband in his presence that if he will come to her house she will file a rape case against him but he cannot say the day and date of said occurrence. He had never attended the court, where the respondent had filed a case of cruelty for demand of dowry but he came to know about the said case from the petitioner. Ritika and Prince are living with their mother and elder daughter of petitioner-appellant is living at Banglore. This case is related to the disputes between wife and husband. It is not a fact that according to the instruction of petitioner he has deposed wrongly in this case.

33. PW 2 is the petitioner Birendra Kumar himself, who said that he has filed this case for divorce. Respondent is his wife and their marriage was solemnized on 24.06.91 according to Hindu rites and rituals and after marriage he lived with his wife in village Koto and out of their wedlock they have been blessed with two daughters aged about 22 years and 17 years respectively and one son aged about 12 years. After retirement from Electricity department father of the petitioner purchased the land in village Koto, PS Patratu and constructed house over it and in the said house petitioner started living with his wife and other family members but subsequently his wife expelled his parents, brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Dewar Dewrani) from the said house. The house constructed in village Koto consists of 17 rooms having an area of 16 decimals of land in which the respondent is living alone since 2005. Since, 2005 a random change came in the behavior of respondent and under the influence of her parents and brother she started behaving like an enemy with the petitioner and they expelled the petitioner and all his relatives from the said house with the help of antisocial aliments. Petitioner started living in CCL quarter Sounda along with his parents and sister and marriage of his sister was performed by his parents from a rented house on his own expenses. Since, 2005 there is no conjugal relationship between the petitioner and respondent. Respondent also filed a case on the instigation of her brother u/s 498A IPC and 3/4 of D.P. Act and also filed a Maintenance case u/s 125 Cr.P.C and she is getting maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month from the petitioner. Petitioner has been tortured physically and mentally by the respondent and he was put into economic loss by the respondent by expelling him and his family members from the house of village Koto and she is getting rent of Rs.10000/- per month from the said house which has been given on rent. Not only that respondent also administered poison to him to get his job on compassionate ground after his death and for that reason he had informed the Bank Management not to provide any benefit to his wife if the petitioner dies. Petitioner tried to pacify the matter with the respondent but there was no change in her behavior. Respondent is getting maintenance from the petitioner even then the petitioner is bearing the burden of education cost of his children. He is also providing treatment to his ailing and old parents, who are bed ridden. So, he has been compelled to file this divorce suit against the respondent.

34. In his cross-examination he said that he has filed his affidavited examination in chief on 30.11.17 and after going through it he has put his signature on the same. Chanchla Kumari, Ritika Kumari and Prince Kumar are his children. His wife has expelled him and his family members from the house of village Koto but for that he has not filed any written complaint in the police station. A Panchyat was convened in village Koto regarding his torture by his wife but he doesn‟t remember the date of said Panchyati. No Panchyati paper was prepared in the light of said Panchyati. He is living separately from his wife since 2005 and his three kids are living with their mother. In the year 2005 Malti Devi had filed a criminal case of torture for demand of dowry in which they have been acquitted. When his wife has administered poison to him he can't say the day and date of said occurrence. He has not filed any case in the police station regarding administering the poison to him. As poison he was administered sleeping pills in excessive dose but for that he has not taken any medical aid. He had informed the bank that if he dies, his wife is not entitled to get any benefit or service on his behalf but he has not attached any such paper with his affidavit. He has got his parental house in village Koto and except that he has no other house. His wife has filed a case against him for restitution of conjugal right and he knows about it. It is not a fact that statement given by him through affidavit in the court is wrong and respondent has never tortured him. It is also not a fact that he has an illicit relation with another lady and for that he has refused to stay with his wife and OP wants to stay with him.

35. PW 3 is Bijay Saw, who said that he knows either side. Respondent Malti Devi is his maternal sister (cousin) and he was the mediator in the marriage of Malti Devi and Birendra Kumar, whose marriage was performed on 24.06.91 and after marriage they got three children from their conjugal life. Petitioner's brother and sister are already married and his parents are alive. Father of the petitioner had constructed a house which consists of 17 rooms on 16 decimals of land purchased by him from his retiral benefit. Petitioner kept his wife with him at his place of posting but since 2005 respondent started doing cruelty with the petitioner and she was demanding entire money earned by her husband and started interfering with the family affairs of the petitioner which created differences between them.

Respondent also expelled the petitioner, his parents and other family members from the parental house of village Koto and threatened that if they will come to stay at that house, they will be implicated in a false rape case and they will have to spend their life in jail. Respondent also filed a case of torture against the petitioner and his family members for demand of dowry in which petitioner went to jail. Respondent also filed a Maintenance case against the petitioner. Since, 2005 Respondent is staying alone in the house of 17 rooms and she gave the portion of said house on rent to other person and she is getting rent from her renters. Petitioner and his family members are not going to stay in the said house due to the terror of the Respondent and marriage of petitioner's sister was performed from another place. Respondent has captured the entire house and she has only love for money and property. She has no love for her husband. Mother of petitioner is bed ridden since last 7 years because she received a stroke due to shock because her daughter-in-law captured her house. She is getting maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month from the petitioner. Petitioner is bearing the educational cost of his children because the Respondent is not spending a single pie on her children. Petitioner is staying in a rented house along with his old ailing parents in village Sounda. Petitioner has threat of life from the respondent because she administered poison to the petitioner in his food. The motto of respondent behind it was to get the job of her husband on compassionate ground after his death, so she did so. Thereafter, petitioner informed the bank that after his death respondent will not be entitled to get any benefit as his wife from the bank. So, the petitioner has filed this case of divorce against his wife.

36. In his cross-examination he said that he has filed this affidavit after going through it. He is living in Asansol. He cannot say the age of children of petitioner. Birendra Kumar has got two brothers and three sisters. Children of petitioner are living with their mother. Two daughters are studying out- side and son is living with his mother. He has no knowledge about Khata number and plot number of the land on which the house of petitioner's father is situated. Petitioner said him that respondent is doing cruelty with him by assaulting him and by snatching his entire money. Once the respondent had assaulted Birendra in his presence but he cannot say the date of that occurrence. Birendra had got only one house at Patratu and he had no any other house anywhere. Malti Devi is living in the house of Birendra's father and she has given some portion of said house on rent but he cannot say the name of renters. Malti Devi has filed a case for restitution of conjugal right but he has no knowledge about the said case. He came to depose in a divorce case. It is not a fact the he has filed a false affidavit

and he gave false evidence in this case on the request of petitioner.

37. Respondent -Opposite party has adduced four witnesses in favour of her case out of them OPW 1 is Malti Devi, OP herself, who said that her marriage was performed on 24.06.91 according to Hindu customs and traditions and after marriage she faced hardship but somehow she pulled her life up to 1994. Thereafter, she gave birth to a female child and in the year 1998 she gave birth to another female child and for that reason members of her matrimonial house started torturing her which continued and petitioner never cared for her. In the year 2003 she gave birth to one male child but petitioner said that said son is not born out of his wedlock and since she is a characterless lady so she cannot stay in his house and on this allegation, she was expelled from her matrimonial house. Several times Panchyati was held in the society but the petitioner was not ready to keep her with honour and dignity and he was demanding heavy amount to keep her with him but respondent was not in a position to fulfill his demand, so ultimately, she filed a case u/s 498A of IPC & 3/4 of D.P. Act in which the police filed charge sheet after investigation. Due to the said criminal case filed by the respondent, the petitioner has filed this divorce case in the year 2012 to take revenge from the Respondent. Petitioner is not providing proper facility to his children and the respondent is alone maintaining her kids. She wants to stay with the petitioner and for that she has filed a case of restitution of conjugal right bearing No. 198/12, which is pending as Misc. Case No. 3/14 in this court. The children of petitioner has also filed a written complaint against the petitioner. Petitioner has constructed his residential house in Basant Bihar Colony Ward No. 6, Ramgarh and he is also having government quarter and shop. Many times mediation was held but the petitioner is not ready to stay with the respondent and due to torture of petitioner respondent become ill and she has filed the medical prescription. Petitioner is short tempered and a cruel man. He is addicted of wine and had illicit relationship with another lady. Without any rhyme and reason petitioner has left the respondent deserted and due to said act of the petitioner her children are also in mental shock.

38. In her cross-examination she said that first posting of her husband was in Chanchal, District Malda, where she stayed with him and prior to that she was staying in her matrimonial house. When her husband was transferred to Central Sounda SBI she started living in her matrimonial house. During the posting of her husband at Chanchal and Sounda some time he was allowing her to stay at her matrimonial house thereafter she was being expelled from there. She stayed with her husband till September, 2007

and thereafter she started living separately but during this period her husband was in contact with her. The house where she is staying presently, is constructed on whose land, she has no knowledge of it. She is M.A. Her matrimonial ancestral house is situated in district Aurangabad. Her father-in-law was working in Electricity department Patratu. She has no knowledge whether her father-in-law has purchased the land of village Koto from his income or not. She has no knowledge about the area of land on which the house, where she is living, is situated. The dwelling house in which she is living consists of 17 rooms out of which only five rooms are in habitable condition and rest 12 rooms have collapsed. She can't say the area of land on which the said house is situated. Her husband have three brothers out of them his elder Dewar Khagesh is living in his house and younger Dewar Anish is in job. Both the brothers of her husband are not living presently in the house situated in village Koto. She is living since 2003 alongwith her kids in the house situated in village Koto. It is not a fact that she is getting rent of Rs. 10,000/- from the said house, in which she is living. Her mother-in-law is bed ridden since last 2-3 years. Her husband, her mother-in-law and father-in-law are living in Ramgarh in their own house and they are not living in CCL quarter. The family members of her matrimonial house never lived in CCL quarter situated in Sounda. It is not a fact that she has threatened her father-in-law and mother-in-law that if they will live in the house of village Koto they will be implicated in rape case by her. She has no knowledge in this regard that her father-in-law is willing to do worship in the house constructed by him but he is unable to do so due to her presence. She has not seen the documents of house situated in Ramgarh, where the family members of her matrimonial house are presently living. She came to know from their neighbour that said house is in the name of her Dewrani purchased from the income of her husband and she will produce the paper in this regard and she will also adduce the evidence the neighbour of her husband and father-in-law.

39. She had further deposed that her elder daughter is presently studying in Banglore and the 2nd daughter is pursuing Engineering from Sambalpur and his son is presently student of OP Jindal school. She has heard that her elder daughter is studying in Banglore because she is not being allowed to meet with her elder daughter. She has no idea about the monthly educational expenses of her daughter. The educational expenses of her daughter are being borne by her husband. The educational expenses of her son are being borne by some time by her and some time by her husband. She is getting total 8000/- per month as maintenance for her and her three children. She was also willing to do some job because she was educated. It is not a fact that to get the job she administered poison to her husband so that she can get job on compassionate ground to fulfill her desire. On 22.08.96, on 30.08.98 and on 05.01.18 Panchyati were held and in the last Panchyati 50 persons were present but her husband did not turn up. She has got papers related to all the Panchyati held in past and she will present those papers in the court. She had filed a case against her husband and in-laws regarding torture for demand of dowry in which they have been acquitted because her both the daughters had not deposed in that case. The quarter situated in Central Sounda belongs to CCL, which is in possession of her husband but the shop in which Khagesh is running a business that is under whose ownership, she has no knowledge of it. Sometimes her husband lives in CCL quarter and sometime in the house of Basant Bihar colony, Ramgarh, Ward No. 6. One another house is situated in New market, Patratu, where her husband lives and ownership of that house is with her Dewar Khagesh and his wife Damyanti Devi. The medical treatment of her mother-in-law is being done by her husband. It is not a fact that intentionally and deliberately she started quarreling with her husband and also started living separately from her husband and she captured the house of her mother-in-law and she is receiving rent of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the renter staying in the said house. It is not a fact that she attempted to kill her husband to get job in place of her husband. It is also not a fact that she has no love with her husband and she has only love from his earning and property, so she captured the house of her mother-in-law and expelled the relatives of her matrimonial house and started living separately from petitioner by herself. She has filed the case of restitution of conjugal right against her husband after the disposal of criminal case of torture for demand of dowry and maintenance case.

40. OPW 2 is the daughter of the petitioner and respondent, who said that she knows the fact of this case. After marriage her mother started living at her matrimonial house alongwith her in-laws but after some time she was subjected to torture and cruelty by the relatives of her husband due to demand of dowry. Her father was under the influence of his parents and relatives, so her mother was separated by her father from his family. Her father never loved them and her mother is maintaining her kids. Petitioner and his father are mentally torturing the respondent and her kids. Her father has constructed two houses in Patratu and Ramgarh from his income in the name of his unemployed brother and parents. Petitioner has also his houses at Aurangabad, New Market Patratu, Koto, Patratu and new Basant Bihar Colony Ramgarh. Her mother is providing medical aid to them.

Petitioner and his family members want to perform 2nd marriage of her father and they also want to expel them from the house of Koto forcibly. Respondent is never willing and ready for divorce, rather she has filed a case of restitution of conjugal right, which is pending in this court. The court also tried to settle the matter amicably but petitioner is not ready to live with them. Due to torture of petitioner respondent is suffering from many diseases. Petitioner has deserted his wife and his children without any reasonable and justified cause due to which their future became dark. In her cross- examination she said that she came to know about the marriage of her parents from her parents. When she developed sense to understand she was living in river side Bhurkunda along with her father occasionally. Her mother and father were quarreling with each other. After quarrel they were brought to Patratu by her grandfather, grandmother, uncle and aunt and from there they went to their maternal home alongwith her mother.

41. She had further deposed that in the year 2007 her mother had filed a case against her father and grand parents. She came to deposed today in this case from Odisha, where she is pursuing Engineering. Her elder sister is pursuing MCA from Banglore, who is bearing their educational expenses she has no knowledge of it. The house of village Koto, where her mother is staying presently is either in the name of her

father or her grandfather. Paternal house of her grandfather is situated in Aurangabad. Who has constructed the house of village Koto she has no knowledge of it. Her mother wants to live with her father. Her grandfather had demanded dowry in her presence in the year 2014. The case filed by her mother in the year 2007 has already been disposed of and in the said case no one was convicted. Her mother is receiving the entire maintenance amount and she is getting her share in the maintenance amount from her mother. Her educational cost is Rs. 5500/- per month. Who is paying the said amount, she has no knowledge of it. She is studying after getting educational loan. Entire educational cost of her elder sister is being born by her father. Whenever, she is in need of money she demands money from her mother and father both on phone. She has got two uncles and two aunts, all of them are living separately. Her one uncle is living in Ramgarh. Where her younger uncle is living, she has no knowledge of it. Her father is staying in quarter at Sounda. She came to know these facts from the family members. His father is bearing the medical expenses of her grandparents. In a case of torture for demand of dowry filed by her mother, her father had gone to jail. Her mother and father are living separately since last 10 years but they are in contact with each other. She has no knowledge that her mother was living separately from her grandparents and she was taking Rs.

6000/-per month from her father for her expenses. Her mother has never taught in any school. Her father has never told him that her mother had administered poison to him. It is not a fact that her mother was always quarreling with her father and she filed a false case of torture for demand of dowry against her father. It is also not a fact that her mother administered poison to her father as because she was willing to get job of her husband on compassionate ground after his death. It is also not a fact that her mother tortured her father due to which her father had filed this divorce case. It is also not a fact that on the instruction of her mother she is deposing falsely.

42. OPW 3 is Lali Devi, who said that she know both side, who were married in the year 1991 according to Hindu customs. After marriage Malti Devi never lived happily and peacefully in her matrimonial house and she was subjected to torture for demand of dowry. After giving birth to two female child, she was also subjected to cruelty in different ways and when she gave birth to her son, she was alleged to be an unchaste lady and she was expelled from her matrimonial house just after 14 days of birth of her son.

43. OP filed a case for torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Panchyati was held many times but the matter could not be settled. She is being neglected by the petitioner and since long she is leading a lonely life by maintaining her children. Respondent has also filed a case for restitution of conjugal right which is pending in the court. Petitioner also wants to expel her from her matrimonial house, where she is living presently. Petitioner has many houses, shops and government residential accommodation is being provided to him as a bank employee. Petitioner is not ready to live with the respondent and mediation failed. Since the respondent has only one shelter so it was decided by the Patratu Sarkari Mandal unanimously that she must not be ousted from her matrimonial house and right of respondent and her children should be protected.

44. In her cross-examination she said that her house is at a distance of 1- to 15 steps from the house of Malti Devi. Malti Devi is a member of Sakhi Mandali Mahila Mandal and she is also a member of said organization. Birendra Kumar has two brothers and three sisters. After marriage the place in which Malti Devi stayed with her husband, she can't say about its detail. The house where Malti Devi is living consists of 16 to 17 rooms out of which only 5-6 rooms are in habitable condition and rest are in collapsed condition. Previously other family members of Malti Devi were living there. Presently Malti Devi is living there and other family members of matrimonial house of Malti used to visit the said house. Birendra is also visiting his house, who used to come in between 10 to 11 AM and at 5 PM to drop his children.

She cannot say about all the occurrence of village Koto. She has also no knowledge that in village Koto and New market in whose house family disputes are going on and she cannot suggest their names. House of Khagesh, who is the brother of Birendra is situated besides her house and family members and relatives of Khagesh visit his house. Quarrel is going on in between Birendra and Malti since last 15 years. Anish is doing job outside since last 10 years. Fifteen years ago a Panchyati was held while Birendra and his family members were willing to expel Malti from her matrimonial house then police intervened and helped Malti in staying in the said house. Neither the police nor Malti expelled her husband and in-laws from the said house. She has no knowledge what demand of dowry was made by her husband and in-laws from Malti. She has also no knowledge that Malti is getting maintenance from the court. Malti is bearing the educational and maintenance cost of her children. When Malti filed a case in Patratu police station, at that time she was not with her. She had not deposed in the case of Malti filed for torture due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. Malti is not working and there is no renter in the house of Malti. Neither she asked Malti nor she told her how she is bearing the educational cost of her children. It is true that Birendra used to come to the house of Malti alonwith his children. She has no knowledge whether in a case of torture for demand of dowry filed by Malti Birendra had gone to jail or not. She had no knowledge that Malti was teaching in any school. Birendra has a quarter in Sounda but whether it is a government quarter provided by the bank or not she has no knowledge of it. She has seen the Pucca house of Birendra situated in Basant Bihar Colony, where he living with his parents and relatives. In both the places in new market and Basant Bihar colony Birendra and his family members are living. House and shop has been constructed by Birendra because Khagesh is unemployed and ever body is saying that Birendra had constructed the house and shop. Father- in-law of Malti was working in Electricity department. Khagesh is living with his parents. Mahila Mandal is a private organization or government organization she has no knowledge of it. Members of Patratu Mahila Mandal have decided that if Malti Devi is expelled from her ancestral house it will be illegal but she has no knowledge about the ownership of said house. It is not a fact that since she is the member of Mahila Mandal so she deposed wrongly in favour of Malti Devi.

45. OPW 4 is Sharda Devi, who said that marriage between parties were solemnized in the year 1991 according to Hindu rites and custom but just after marriage respondent was subjected to torture due to demand of dowry and petitioner is not caring for his wife and children. She also proved the certified copy of Misc. Case No. 3/14 as Ext. A marked with objection. She also said that attempt for settlement was made but petitioner is not ready to live with the respondent due to which the future of respondent and her children has become dark.

46. In her cross-examination this witness said that on the request of Malti devi she came to deposed in the court and according to statement of Malti Devi she has prepared her affidavit. She has no knowledge about the date of birth of two daughters of respondent. House of respondent is in front of her house. She also stated about boundary of house of Malti Devi. She is living in village Koto since last 20 years. There is no renter in the house of Malti Devi and she is not the member of Sakhi Mahila Mandal. After marriage Malti lived in village Koto. She never lived with Birendra on the place of his posting. Malti is living in village Koto after the occurrence of assault and expulsion by her husband and in- laws and the said house where presently she is living belongs to her in-laws. How many cases have been filed by Malti Devi and what is the ultimate result of those cases she has no knowledge of it. Other in-laws of Malti Devi are living in new market after constructing their house. It is not true that Malti Devi expelled her in-law from the house of Koto by giving threatening to implicate them in false case. She came to know about the name of respondent Malti Devi 2 to 4

months ago but she is known to her by face since long. It is not true that she has no knowledge about the case filed by Malti Devi and under the influence of Malti Devi she deposed wrongly in this case because she and Malti are the members of same Satsang organization.

47. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Principal Family Judge after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against respondent/husband, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

48. It requires to refer herein that since appellate jurisdiction has been invoked herein, therefore, before entering into merit of the case, at this juncture it would be purposeful to discuss the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.

49. It needs to refer herein that under section 7 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any Sub- ordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature which are described in the explanation to section 7(1).

50. Sub-section (1) to section 19 of the Family Courts Act provides that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order not being an interlocutory order of a Family Court to the High Court "both on facts and on law". Therefore, section

19 of the Family Courts Act is parallel to section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the scope of which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments.

51. The law is well settled that the High Court in a First Appeal can examine every question of law and fact which arises in the facts of the case and has powers to affirm, reverse or modify the judgment under question. In "Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi" (2008) 10 SCC 497 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is lawful for the High Court acting as the First Appellate Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of fact as well and the appellate Court therefore can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence and can come to its own conclusion. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted as under: “It is no doubt true that the High Court was exercising power as the first appellate court and hence it was open to the Court to enter into not only questions of law but questions of fact as well. It is settled law that an appeal is a continuation of suit. An appeal thus is a rehearing of the main matter and the appellate court can reappraise, reappreciate and review the entire evidence--oral as well as documentary--and can come to its own conclusion.”

52. Herein, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the evidence of cruelty and desertion as also the demand of dowry has not properly been considered and as such, the judgment suffers from perversity, hence, not sustainable in the eyes of law.

53. This Court, while appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel on the issue of perversity, needs to refer herein the interpretation of the word “perverse” as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court which means that there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment reads as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.

25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry & Co. Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings.

26. In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977 Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett v. Gough [(1878) 1 LR 1r 331] the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW 814] the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc.

27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner:

1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse.—Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.”

2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse.—Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable.

3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse.—Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law.

4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe EncyclopedicEdn.) Perverse.—Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant.

5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words & Phrases, 4th Edn. “Perverse.—A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.”

54. Herein, submission has been made on behalf of the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife committed mental and physical cruelty against him.

55. So far the allegation of cruelty is concerned, it requires to refer herein the definition of „cruelty’ as has been defined by Hon‟ble Apex in the judgment rendered in Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane [(1975) 2 SCC 326], wherein it has been held that the Court is to enquire as to whether the charge as cruelty, is of such a character, as to cause in the mind of the petitioner, a reasonable apprehension that, it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent.

56. The cruelty has also been defined in the case of Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi [(1988) 1 SCC 105], wherein the wife alleged that the husband and his parents demanded dowry. The Hon‟ble Apex Court emphasized that “cruelty” can have no fixed definition.

57. According to the Hon’ble Apex Court, “cruelty” is the “conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial conduct in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations”. It is the conduct which adversely affects the spouse. Such cruelty can be either “mental” or “physical”, intentional or unintentional. For example, unintentionally waking your spouse up in the middle of the night may be mental cruelty; intention is not an essential element of cruelty but it may be present. Physical cruelty is less ambiguous and more “a question of fact and degree.”

58. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed therein that while dealing with such complaints of cruelty that it is important for the Court to not search for a standard in life, since cruelty in one case may not be cruelty in another case. What must be considered include the kind of life the parties are used to, “their economic and social conditions”, and the “culture and human values to which they attach importance.”

59. The nature of allegations need not only be illegal conduct such as asking for dowry. Making allegations against the spouse in the written statement filed before the court in judicial proceedings may also be held to constitute cruelty.

60. In V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting cross-examination. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband to constitute “cruelty”.

61. In Vijay kumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003)6 SCC 334 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed by taking into consideration the allegations levelled by the husband in his written statement that his wife was “unchaste” and had indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and that his wife was having an extramarital affair. These allegations, given the context of an educated Indian woman, were held to constitute “cruelty” itself.

62. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742, has been pleased to observe that while judging whether the conduct is cruel or not, what has to be seen is whether that conduct, which is sustained over a period of time, renders the life of the spouse so miserable as to make it unreasonable to make one live with the other. The conduct may take the form of abusive or humiliating treatment, causing mental pain and anguish, torturing the spouse, etc. The conduct complained of must be “grave” and “weighty” and trivial irritations and normal wear and tear of marriage would not constitute mental cruelty as a ground for divorce.

63. Cruelty” has an inseparable nexus with human conduct and is always dependent on social strata or milieu to which parties belong, their ways of life, relationship, temperaments and emotions that are conditioned by their social status, reference be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC

288.

64. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, (2013) 5 SCC 226 has observed that cruelty is evident where one spouse so treats other and manifests such feelings in other, as to cause reasonable apprehension in mind of other that it would be harmful or injurious to reside with other spouse and cruelty may be physical or mental. It has further been observed that staying together under the same roof is not a precondition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof.

65. In matrimonial relationship cruelty mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between spouses which embitters relationship. Sometimes it may take form of violence, or at times may just be an attitude or approach. Silence in some situations may also amount to cruelty reference be made to the case of Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476.

66. For considering dissolution of marriage at instance of a spouse who alleges mental cruelty, result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with matrimonial relationship reference may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, (2021) 3 SCC 742.

67. Further the word „cruelty‟ is used relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778.

68. Further, in the case of Manish Tyagi v. Deepak Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 339 the Hon‟ble Apex Court has categorically observed that to constitute „cruelty‟, it is enough that conduct of one of parties is so abnormal and below accepted norm that other spouse could not reasonable be expected to put up with it. Conduct is no longer required to be so atrociously abominable which would cause reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful of injurious to continue cohabitation with another spouse. Hence, it is not necessary to establish physical violence. Continued ill-treatment, cessation of marital intercourse, studied neglect, indifference may lead to inference of cruelty.

69. The word “cruelty” under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act has got no static connotation, and therefore, gives a very wide discretion to the Court to apply it liberally and contextually. What is cruelty in one case may not be the same for another and has to be applied from person to person while taking note of the attending circumstances. Harm or injury to health, reputation, the working-career or the like, would be important considerations in determining whether the conduct of the defending spouse amounts to cruelty. It has to be shown that the defending spouse has treated him with cruelty to cause reasonable apprehension in his/her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with the contesting spouse.

70. Further, it requires to refer herein that the word „desertion‟ has been given in Explanation to Section 13 (1) wherein it has been stated that “the expression desertion means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.

71. It is pertinent to note that the word „desertion‟, as has been defined in Explanation part of Section 13 of the Act, 1955, means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.

72. Rayden on Divorce ,which is a standard work on the subject at p. 128 (6th Edn.), has summarised the case-law on the subject in these terms: “Desertion is the separation of one spouse from the other, with an intention on the part of the deserting spouse of bringing cohabitation permanently to an end without reasonable cause and without the consent of the other spouse; but the physical act of departure by one spouse does not necessarily make that spouse the deserting party.”

73. The legal position has been admirably summarised in paras-453 and 454 at pp. 241 to 243 of Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 12, in the following words: “In its essence desertion means the intentional permanent forsaking and abandonment of one spouse by the other without that other's consent, and without reasonable cause. It is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. In view of the large variety of circumstances and of modes of life involved, the Court has discouraged attempts at defining desertion, there being no general principle applicable to all cases.

74. Desertion is not the withdrawal from a place but from a state of things, for what the law seeks to enforce is the recognition and discharge of the common obligations of the married state; the state of things may usually be termed, for short, „the home‟. There can be desertion without previous cohabitation by the parties, or without the marriage having been consummated. The person who actually withdraws from cohabitation is not necessarily the deserting party.

75. The offence of desertion is a course of conduct which exists independently of its duration, but as a ground for divorce it must exist for a period of at least two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition or, where the offence appears as a cross-charge, of the answer.

76. Desertion as a ground of divorce differs from the statutory grounds of adultery and cruelty in that the offence founding the cause of action of desertion is not complete, but is inchoate, until the suit is constituted, desertion is a continuing offence.

77. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid reference of meaning of desertion that the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements which differentiate desertion from wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end.

78. Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned: (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to from the necessary intention aforesaid.

79. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Debananda Tamuli vs. Kakumoni Kataky, (2022) 5 SCC 459 has considered the definition of „desertion‟ on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena, AIR 1964 SC 40 which has been consistently followed in several decisions of this Court.

80. The law consistently has been laid down by this Court that desertion means the intentional abandonment of one spouse by the other without the consent of the other and without a reasonable cause. The deserted spouse must prove that there is a factum of separation and there is an intention on the part of deserting spouse to bring the cohabitation to a permanent end. In other words, there should be animus deserendi on the part of the deserting spouse. There must be an absence of consent on the part of the deserted spouse and the conduct of the deserted spouse should not give a reasonable cause to the deserting spouse to leave the matrimonial home.

81. This Court, based upon the aforesaid discussions on the issue of cruelty and desertion, has gone through the testimony of witnesses and found from the testimony of appellant‟s witness and testimony of the appellant-husband that her wife exerted pressure to oust his parent and with the help of family members the appellant and his parents were ousted from their own house thereby they are forced to live in a rented house. Whereas, the testimony of the respondent-wife is that since her husband who is working in the State Bank of India far from his native place as such he took a room on rent in nearby place and from there he used to go to office and denied the allegation of ousting her in-laws from the house.

82. Pleadings available on record, it is evident that only allegation has been made by the husband that her wife has illegally ousted from his parental house no suit for possession has been filed or filed any complaint before the police, as per the statement made at paragraph 18 of the deposition of the appellant itself. Therefore, also the allegation which has been leveled has no leg to stand to prove the element of cruelty.

83. So far as the allegation of administering poison to the appellant-husband by the respondent-wife is concerned, in cross-examination, he failed to say any specific date and admitted that for this also he did not file any police complaint. Further, in cross-examination he admitted that he was administered excessive sleeping pills for which he did not take any medical aid. Therefore, this ground is also not sustainable.

84. On the other hand, the respondent-wife has deposed that when she gave birth to two female children she was subjected to torture and thereafter when in the year 2003 when she gave birth to a male child she was tortured by saying that son is not born out of the wedlock with her husband, and allegation on her character was leveled and the appellant-husband had filed the divorce suit in the year 2012. She has further deposed that she always wants to stay with her husband and for that she filed a case of restitution of conjugal right bearing case no. 189 of 2012.

85. So far as the issue of desertion is concerned, allegation has been made by the appellant-husband that since year 2005 he is living separately from his wife but contrary to it Malti Devi-respondent and their daughter has said that appellant is visiting her regularly, having relation with her.

86. Furthermore, as per the testimonies of the witnesses including the appellant-Petitioner, he is providing educational expenses to his daughters, so from the conduct of petitioner, it transpires that he is taking keen interest in the welfare of his children and he is in visiting term with them as per the statement of his daughter.

87. The OPW 2, who is the daughter of the couple, has not supported the fact of cruelty by her mother against her father, who is a common person between them. She has also narrated about the neglect by her father in her examination-in-chief. She further said in para 11 that her father wants to solemnize 2nd marriage with another lady. He also wants to expel them from the house of village Koto. She further said that her mother has never administered poison to her father.

88. OPW 3 in para 27 of her cross-examination has said that Birendra is visiting the house of Malti Devi and she has also supported the case of OP regarding cruelty against her by her husband and in-laws. She has also said most of the things regarding dispute of house situated in village Koto between the petitioner and OP.

89. OPW 4 has also said in her examination in chief regarding cruelty against the OP by the petitioner and her

relatives and about her expulsion from the matrimonial house. She has proved the petition of Misc. Case No. 3/14 which is filed for restitution of Case No. 189/12 related to restitution of conjugal right filed by Malti Devi.

90. So, the allegation of cruelty leveled against the respondent by the appellant-petitioner could not be proved by him against the respondent.

91. So far as desertion for continuously for two years is concerned, this fact has come into evidence that the appellant has visited the house regularly where the respondent-wife resides Devi, which is situated in village Koto, where she is living with her children. So the ground of desertion for two years immediately preceding the presentation of suit also failed.

92. The learned family court taking these facts into consideration has come to the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner is not entitled for a decree of divorce, which cannot be faulted with.

93. This Court, after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along with the settled legal position as discussed and referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs and adverting to the consideration made by the learned Family Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that the issue of element of cruelty and desertion by the appellant-husband has been properly considered by the learned Family Judge.

94. Accordingly, issues as framed by this Court are decided against the appellant-husband and in favour of the respondent-wife

95. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming under the fold of perversity, since, the conscious consideration has been made to the evidences available on record, as would be evident from the impugned judgment.

96. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed, and the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2018 and decree dated 07.05.2018 (decree signed on 07.05.2018), passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum- Family Judge, Ramgarh in M.T.S. No. 21 of 2012, requires no interference.

97. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

I Agree

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

30th June, 2026 A.F.R Alankar/-