IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
O R D E R
DB Civil Misc. Appeal No.2715/2007
Smt. Praveena Tank
Vs.
Arvind Kumar Tank
Judgment reserved on 31st October, 2014
Date of Judgment : 19th November, 2014
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Hon’ble Mr. Justice JK Ranka
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, for appellant.
Mr. GK Garg, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Anita Agarwal, for respondent.
REPORTABLE
BY THE COURT (Per Hon’ble Rastogi), J.
Instant appeal is directed against the judgment & decree passed by the ld. Family Court, Ajmer, dt.15.6.2007 dissolving the marriage between the parties to the appeal by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty u/S.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (The Act).
The facts giving rise to the present appeal in nutshell are that the appellant wife got married with the respondent husband on 20.5.1994 according to Hindu religion at Udaipur. Parties to the appeal have a son from their wedlock namely Abhimanyu born on 19.9.1999 and their marriage was arranged one.
The respondent husband having noticed frequent visits of defendant-2 which he has impleaded in his matrimonial case-237/2001 namely Virendra Singh Tank S/o Shri Hari Narain Singh Tank who as alleged by the appellant initially as her uncle and was treating him like a brother but in the testimony of NAW-1 herself and NAW-2 her father Gulab Chand it was stated that Virendra Singh Tank S/o Hari Narain Singh Tank was the appellant’s mother’s uncle’s son who was unmarried at the relevant point of time was in govt. service and posted at Alwar. Presence of Virendra Singh Tank was noticed while they were at Beawar which is a native place of respondent or at Udaipur where father of the appellant was residing at the relevant point of time or at Jamnagar where respondent was in service and that was the cause suspecting the character of the appellant and which ultimately resulted in daily matrimonial differences between husband and wife and that suspicion in the mind of respondent husband resulted in making enquiries about her life style prior to her marriage and it revealed to respondent-husband that the appellant wife had some illicit relation with Virendra Singh Tank and after son was born on 19.9.1999, because of strong suspicion respondent husband got DNA test conducted that ultimately found to be positive and it was the major cause in the mind of respondent, husband ultimately giving rise to the matrimonial dispute.
The respondent husband on 17.7.2001 filed a divorce petition-237/2001 in the Family Court, Ajmer for seeking divorce on the ground that appellant wife practiced mental cruelty upon him envisaged u/S.13 of the Act. That apart, appellant wife filed separate application u/S.125 Cr. P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and for her son Master Abhimanyu who is at present 15 years of age and student of Class-IX.
It has also been informed to this Court that separate application has been filed by the respondent husband seeking custody of his son u/S.25 of the Guardian & Wards Act that is pending adjudication.
The petition for divorce contained serious allegation against appellant wife alleging illicit relation with Virendra Singh Tank who was impleaded as party to the divorce petition and despite being served before the ld. Family Court, the proceedings remain ex parte against him but he has not been impleaded as party respondent in the instant appeal by the appellant.
In the written statement filed by the appellant to the divorce petition before the ld. Family court while refuting the allegation levelled by the respondent regarding illicit relation with Virendra Singh Tank counter allegation were alleged by the appellant wife that respondent husband is having illicit relation with her real sister Deepika and that is the reason for which respondent wanted to get rid of her. At the same time, it was also stated with specific averment by the appellant that the respondent was demanding dowry of Rupees five lacs and a Maruti car from her father to take her back to matrimonial home which was not possible by her parents and as the respondent is residing with her real sister Deepika since July 2001 and to overcome that reason petition was filed seeking divorce u/S.13 of the Act on the ground of wife treating him with cruelty.
The appellant wife in the written statement contended inter alia that the petition is filed on false grounds and allegation made against her are based on conjectures and surmises having no iota of evidence. She also denied her relationship with Virendra Singh Tank and further contended that she is ready and willing to stay at her matrimonial home along with her son. She further alleged that respondent husband destroyed the married life on account of alleged suspicion which has no basis and he could not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong and it is further alleged in additional averments that the respondent is a civil engineer and working at Jamnagar having monthly income of Rs.20,000/- and presently residing with her real sister Deepika who left her parents’ home on 2.7.2001 and also alleged that the respondent came to her father on 28.12.2000 at Sikar and once prior thereto and demanded a sum of Rs.5 lacs for purchasing a flat and a maruti car and her father was unable to satisfy the demand made and that is the reason for which the appellant and her son have been thrown out from their matrimonial home. Under these compelling reasons, the appellant is residing with her parents. She opposed the petition for divorce and prayed for dismissal of the same.
After the written statement was filed, following issues framed by the ld. Family Court being translated in English reads as follows-
i)Whether the behaviour of non applicant no.1 Praveena Tak has been cruel on the ground as mentioned in the petition against the applicant husband and his family members ?
ii) Whether non applicant no.1 Praveena Tank was living in adultery with non applicant no.2 prior to marriage and even thereafter ?
iii) Whether the applicant husband is entitled to get the decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage performed on 20.5.1994 with non applicant no.1 ?
In the witness box from the side of respondent husband, five witnesses were examined as AW1 himself, AW-2 Suresh Tank (brother), AW-3 Smt. Bhanwari Devi (mother), AW-4 Mukesh Kumar (brother) & AW-5 Himmat Lal who is Class-IV employee in the firm where respondent had worked from 1993 to 1995 at Beawar and in all 25 documents were exhibited in support of their case.
In defence, appellant wife examined herself as NAW-1 and her father Gulab Chand as NAW-2 and also exhibited 47 documents in support thereof.
On the basis of pleadings, the family Court framed the aforesaid issues and put the petition on trial and after recording evidence and hearing the parties, ld. Family Court was pleased to grant divorce on the ground that appellant wife treated cruelty on respondent husband and granted decree of divorce vide judgment dt.15.6.2007. Hence, this appeal.
Mr. Rajendra Prasad, ld. counsel for the appellant contended that in the petition filed by the respondent husband serious allegations were made against the appellant wife that she was having illicit relationship with one Virendra Singh Tank prior to her marriage. These allegations could not be held as proved as the pleadings in the petition were absolutely vague and lacked in material particulars and further contended that it was open for the respondent husband to get Virendra Singh Tank examined and cross examined and the material placed on record could not be considered as plea to support cruelty as led by the respondent in his petition before the ld. Family Court and the inference drawn by the court below is perverse and is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Counsel further contended that allegation made by the respondent husband against appellant wife that she has illicit relation with Virendra Singh Tank before her marriage and which persisted even thereafter are absolutely imaginary and none of these allegations could be said to be proved by the respondent.
Counsel further urged that the appellant wife is compelled to leave matrimonial home as the respondent husband had started demanding dowry of Rs.5 lacs from her father for purchasing a flat and a Maruti car which her father was unable to meet out and as her younger sister Deepika eloped with respondent husband on 2.7.2001 and residing with him, that was the reason forthcoming throwing the appellant wife and son out from her matrimonial home.
It is also contended that after the appellant stayed with her mother in law for quite a long time but no complaint was ever made by her and it has given a new color to get rid of appellant after relations of the respondent being developed with her younger sister Deepika and no material is placed on record which could connect the character of the appellant. Thus, the finding recorded by the ld. Family Court are based on no evidence and none of the acts constitute cruelty can be said to be proved.
Counsel for appellant also took us through evidence of the parties and tried to highlight suspicious nature of the husband towards his wife and all the time husband tried to blame the appellant for spoiling marriage between the parties but there was no complaint ever made either before the court below or even before the family members and for the first time the allegation was made by the respondent husband at the time of application for divorce when filed before the ld. Family Court, Ajmer on 17.7.2001. Counsel contended that none of the grounds could be said to have been proved by the respondent husband for granting divorce.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent husband refuted the submission made by counsel for appellant wife and contended that respondent proved various acts of cruelty practiced by the appellant wife and sufficient evidence was brought on record that the appellant was having illicit relations with Virendra Singh Tank and initially when written statement was filed she claimed Virendra Singh Tank to be her uncle and she was treating him as a brother but after the statement came to be recorded of the appellant wife as NAW1 and her father as NAW2 Gulab Chand, the relationship revealed that Virendra Singh Tank is her mother’s uncle’s son who is 10 years elder to the appellant and was unmarried and in govt. service posted at Alwar at the relevant time but have a high frequency of coming to the place at Beawar, Udaipur or Jamnagar where respondent worked and both were found together at various other places and documents are exhibited in support thereof regarding their letters and joint snaps at Beawar and Udaipur and because of their frequent meeting after their son was born he had to go to DNA test as he was not sure that the son was born from their wedlock and illicit relation of the appellant with Virendra Singh Tank prior to the marriage was blow to the matrimonial relationship between the parties to the appeal. This caused mental stress and agony which constitute the act of cruelty practiced by the wife. The doubt was further fortified by the respondent husband of their illicit relations as he had to go ahead for DNA test after son was born, this gives further blow to the matrimonial relations.
Ld. counsel further contended that the respondent husband has been able to prove the said act by deposing on oath that there had been illicit relations between the appellant and Virendra Singh Tank and they have frequent meetings and the evidence which has come on record is sufficient to demonstrate that the appellant had illicit relations with Virendra Singh Tank.
Ld. counsel further contended that witnesses AW2 Suresh Tank and AW4 Mukesh Tank, brothers of respondent husband in their examination-in-chief have duly supported the respondent’s case and have deposed on oath that looking to the financial status of the respondent there is hardly any justification for the allegation made for the first time in the written statement for demanding dowry from the parents of the appellant wife or there is ill treatment by husband’s, mother Bhanwari Devi AW3 who also certified the views showered on oath by AW2 & AW4 against daughter in law.
Counsel further submitted that numerous acts of cruelty have been proved by the respondent husband so as to maintain decree of divorce passed by the ld. Family Court which could not be disturbed in this appeal.
We have considered the submissions made by the parties and with their assistance carefully examined the pleadings led by the parties and the evidence recorded by the ld. Family Court.
The law on cruelty is now well settled. This is now clear in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat reported in AIR 1994 SC 710. On a review of the earlier Supreme Court decisions, right from the case of Dr. N. G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane reported in 1975 (2) SCC 326, the Supreme Court has clarified legal position which now obtains after the amendment of 1976 to the Hindu Marriage Act. In V. Bhagat v. D. S. Bhagat (supra), the Supreme Court had observed that, thus at page 437 of JT (SC) (at p. 717 of AIR), “17. Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility of otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. It is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.”
The Apex Court again in the case of G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli, 2002 AIR SC 162 observed that to constitute cruelty it need not be an act of such nature as causing reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful to the party to live with other party. The Apex Court held that having regard to the sanctity and importance of marriage in a community life, the Court should consider whether the conduct of the party is such that it has become intolerable for the one to suffer any longer and to live together is impossible, and then only the Court can find that there is a cruelty on the respondent. The Apex Court in later judgment in Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi 2001(4) SCC 250 has taken a view that to constitute cruelty there must be evidence in support of the averments made in the petition.
The relevant provision of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under.
“Divorce–(a) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of the Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party–
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty, or……..
‘Cruelty’ is not defined in the Act but is a relative term. It varies from person to person and there cannot be laid down any straight jacket formula and each case has to be examined on its own facts. The allegation and conduct of one particular case may not amount to cruelty in all the cases. It depends upon various factors which includes the status of the spouses and the atmosphere in which they live. Cruelty implies and means harsh conduct and of such intensity and persistence, which would make it impossible for the spouse to operate the marriage. Although the cruelty may not defined in the Act, but it is to be determined on the basis of proved facts and circumstances of the case.
It is indeed true that marriage is a sacred relationship between husband and the wife. In a traditional society like ours, when a boy marries a girl, he not only brings a wife to his home, but also brings a daughter-in-law for the family. Thus, the behaviour of a woman has to be seen both as a wife and as a daughter-in-law.
To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be “grave and weighty” so as to come to the conclusion that the spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than “ordinary wear and tear of married life”. Taking into consideration the circumstances and background the conduct has to be examined to reach to the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. There are no standards which could be laid down in the form of definition so to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not always essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act.
AW3 Smt. Bhanwari Devi, mother in law of appellant also proved allegation against the appellant in her testimony and deposed that Virendra Singh Tank frequently used to come to meet the appellant and both after closing the doors of the room stayed in side it and has never taken care of her other two sons AW2 & AW4 who at one point of time living in joint family & also made almost same kind of allegation against the appellant and her so called alleged relations with Virendra Singh Tank who has a very high frequency of coming to her residence for meeting the appellant.
The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse’s conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person with ordinary prudence would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal.
Ld. Family Court relying on the pleadings having brought on record established cruelty practiced by the appellant wife. At this juncture, it will not be out of place to mention that Virendra Singh Tank was impleaded as one of defendant-2 before the Ld. Family court in the petition leveling direct allegation against him about his relationship with appellant wife and despite service of notice proceedings against him remained ex parte. However, the factum of thick acquittance was admitted in the statement of appellant and of her father recorded as NAW1 and NAW 2 respectively. At the same time, Virendra Singh Tank who was unmarried and in govt. service was posted at Alwar having no such relation with the appellant wife who initially claimed in the written statement as her uncle and she is treating him as brother but after testimony of NAW1 and NAW2 it was established that Virendra Singh Tank was appellant’s mother’s uncle’s son and of distant relation but frequent visiting to the appellant’s matrimonial home wherever she stayed at Beawar, Udaipur or Jamnagar certainly created doubt and suspicion in the mind of respondent husband and sufficient evidence was available on record to draw an interference against the appellant wife to reach to the conclusion that he has sufficient reason of suspicion of illicit relationship of appellant wife with Virendra Singh Tank prior to her marriage and the relations continued even thereafter.
Both the parties have leveled allegation against each other for not maintaining the sanctity of marriage and involvement with another person. According to the respondent, the appellant wife is having illicit relations with Virendra Singh Tank who happens to be her mother’s uncle’s son before marriage and that persisted thereafter and according to the appellant, the respondent husband is indulged in holding illicit relations with the appellant’s younger sister Deepika. However, the ld. Family Court from the material which came on record and taking note of the allegations and counter allegations arrived to a conclusion that nature of allegation alleged certainly caused mental cruelty to the husband and could not be proved beyond doubt but suspicion which is being started by tangible evidence disturbing mental peace of respondent husband and even counter allegation which was led by the appellant wife against respondent husband that he has illicit relations with appellant’s younger sister Deepika is certainly unfortunate, however, the appellant was not able to justify and prove it by some tangible evidence on record and this fact has been noticed by the Family Court that before divorce petition came to be filed by the respondent husband no such complaint has ever been made at any point of time if there was some merit in such allegation that his own younger sister Deepika eloped with respondent husband and residing at present with him and in totality and cumulative effect, it was considered to be a case of mental cruelty and issue no.1 was decided in favour of the respondent husband and as a matter of fact both the parties have been living separately since more than 14 years by now and other collateral proceedings for maintenance and custody of child are also initiated and one of the matter regarding custody is pending before the competent court.
It is undoubtedly proved that the foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. All quarrels must be weighted from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and as noted above, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. Too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counterproductive to the institution of marriage. The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives. It has to deal with a particular man and woman before it. An ideal couple or a mere ideal one will probably have no occasion to go to Matrimonial Court.
In the instant case, the marriage was solemnized on 20.5.1994 and male child was born on 19.9.1999 but the respondent husband has apprehension from the date of marriage itself that appellant wife is having illicit relations with Virendra Singh Tank to whom he impleaded as defendant non applicant-2 in his divorce petition filed before the Family Court, Ajmer and AW1 respondent husband himself, his two elder brothers AW-2 Suresh Tank, AW-4 Mukesh Kumar and so also AW-3 Smt. Bhanwari Devi, have also stated in their testimony about frequency in which Virendra Singh Tank was coming to their house and used to stay with the appellant wife and keeping door of the room closed and despite there being objection raised from AW1 respondent husband himself & AW3 Smt. Bhanwari Devi, mother of respondent husband that was all brushed aside by the appellant wife and no heed was paid to their request. Simultaneously, Himmat Singh, AW5 who was independent witness who too has stated in his testimony that he saw the appellant wife in a hotel at Beawar with Virendra Singh Tank who stayed there as husband and wife and certain documents were also exhibited before the ld. Family court in support thereof.
This can also be noticed by this Court that initially when written statement was filed to the divorce petition, the relationship of the appellant wife with Virendra Singh Tank and she was treating him as her brother but after the testimony of appellant NAW1 and her father NAW2 Gulab Chand, came to be recorded, the fact remain indisputed that Virendra Singh Tank was appellant’s mother’s uncle’s son having distant relation serving as a govt. servant and posted at Alwar but his frequency of coming to Beawar or Udaipur or Jamnagar was very high, however, such material fact could not have been established beyond doubt but on the basis of principles of preponderance of probabilities suspicion which came in the mind of respondent husband and which he carried from the day of his marriage certainly cannot be ruled out. At the same time, in the counter allegation the appellant wife deposed that respondent husband was having illicit relation with her real sister Deepika who eloped with him on 2.7.2001 and on the date of filing of divorce petition the respondent husband was residing with her sister, at the same time, as per testimony of appellant wife NAW1 and her father NAW2 Gulab Chand, at the time when appellant wife conceived and resided at Jamnagar, her sister Deepika was called and at that time physical relations between Deepika with respondent husband took place and according to her statement she eloped on 2.7.2001 with her husband but no complaint of any kind was ever made to any of the authority to this effect and no tangible evidence came on record in this regard and not found proved by the ld. Family Court. However, cumulative effect was considered by the ld. Family Court in arriving to a conclusion that making ugly remarks against husband in the written statement & deposition has certainly caused mental cruelty to the respondent husband and accordingly the Family Court found issue no.1 proved in favour of respondent husband.
It can be further noticed by this Court that further averment was made by appellant wife NAW1 in her statement and so also in the testimony of NAW2 father of appellant that respondent husband demanded dowry of Rs. 5 lacs for purchasing a flat and also a Maruti car. However, their marriage was solemnized on 20.5.1994 and petition came to be filed in July 2001 and the allegation of demand of dowry was made for the first time at the time of trial in the Family Court in respect of divorce petition and there is no complaint regarding dowry ever made by the appellant in the last seven years of their marriage and the ld. Family Court also noticed that false allegations were leveled by the appellant wife only to dislodge the plea in claiming decree of divorce as prayed for by him for dissolution of their marriage u/S.13 of the Act.
It has also been noticed by this Court that the husband and wife are living separately since November, 2000 and almost 14 years have rolled by now and the litigation between the spouse is still going on earlier at one stage when maintenance application was filed by the appellant u/S. 125 Cr. P.C. and subsequent petition has also been filed for custody of their son under Guardian and Wards Act which is also pending before the competent court of law and efforts were earlier made through mediation and all other alternative mechanism were adopted but all of them failed and they are fighting legal battle for the last 14 years. It can also be noticed that Virendra Singh Tank was duly served before the ld. Family Court and despite there was direct allegation against him of illicit relation with appellant wife but still he had not chosen to appear before the ld. Family Court and proceedings were initiated against him ex parte and present appeal came to be preferred by the appellant wife against the judgment & decree of the ld. Family Court dt.15.7.2007, the appellant has not chosen to implead Virendra Singh Tank as one of the respondent. However, it is true that in such matters there cannot be a full proof and suspicion supported by tangible evidence on record can be relied on preponderance of probabilities which can certainly be taken due care for the purpose of taking decision as to whether there is any mental cruelty being caused to the spouse and mental cruelty certainly cannot be brushed aside caused to husband.
We find justification in the statement made by counsel for respondent husband that irresponsible insinuations and allegations made, in reply to the application against the respondent cannot be brushed aside. It is not necessary that cruelty must be of such magnitude that it would cause reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or injurious to the appellant. Cruelty must be of such a type which will satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties has deteriorated to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to live together without mental agony. Cruelty generally does not consist of a single isolated act but consists of a series of acts spread over a period of time. The cruelty practiced may be in many forms. It must be productive of an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that it is dangerous to live with the erring party. In the case on hand, false and wild allegations made by the appellant-wife against husband-respondent in the reply to the petition without any basis or foundation which has been considered by the ld. Family Court and in our opinion, were sufficient to cause mental agony to the respondent-husband. Making wild and false allegations in the reply against the character of the husband is nothing then to injure the reputation which amounts to mental cruelty and it was considered by the ld. Family Court to grant decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband so as to make out a case of cruelty practiced by the wife.
We have no hesitation to hold that the act of the appellant-wife did constitute an act of cruelty to the respondent husband. The finding of fact recorded by the ld Family Court in our considered view thus liable to be sustained and it does not call for interference.
It can be further added to hold that one can fairly reach to the conclusion that there is irretrievable break down of marriage of the parties considering serious allegations made by the appellant-wife throwing mud on the character of the respondent-husband coupled with the fact that appellant’s real sister has walked into the life of the respondent-husband, which was not even prima facie established before the ld. Family court from the evidence which came on record and after taking over all view of the matter, it is difficult for both of them to live together as a happily married couple. The other various circumstances brought on record do show that relationship between the parties are irretrievably broken down and it would not be possible for both of them to live together. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that a decree of divorce granted by the Ld. Family Court deserves to be sustained for the reasons indicated above.
Consequently, in view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment & decree of the ld. Family Court dt.15.6.2007.
In the result, there is no force in the appeal and it is hereby dismissed. No cost.
[JK Ranka], J. [Ajay Rastogi], J.
Dsr/
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed”
Datar Singh
P.S.
