JUDGMENT 1. - The present Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-husband against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.1991 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chittorgarh dismissing the suit filed by him under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree for divorce on the ground of adultery, mental cruelty and desertion. 2. After service of summon, the respondent-wife Smt. Janki Devi filed a detail written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as six issues focusing the attention of the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. 4. In support of his claim, the appellant-husband examined himself as PW 1, Ganesh Lal as PW 2, Badri Lal as PW 3, Shanker Lal as PW 4, and Shamsuddin as PW 5. The appellant also filed letters dated 9.7.1974 (Ex. 1), 26.4.1974 (Ex. 2), 6.8.1974 (Ex. 3) and 13.8.1974 (Ex. 4) written by Bhagwati Lal. Apart from the aforesaid documentary evidence, the appellant also produced a photograph of Smt. Janki Devi along with Bhagwati Lal as Ex. 5. 5. In rebuttal, the respondent examined herself as DW 1, Ram Lal as DW 2, Laxmi Narain as DW 3, Hari Prasad as DW 4 and Ram Swaropp as DW 5. 6. After analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the appellant miserably failed to establish that after solemnising the marriage, the respondent had committed voluntarily sexual inter-course with Bhagwati Lal. The claim put-forth by the appellant on the basis of letters Ex. 1 to 4 causing mental cruelty has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court after quoting the contents of the aforesaid letters. Photograph Ex. 5 which is alleged to be source of mental cruelty to the appellant was also disbelieved by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court also disbelieved that the respondent had deserted the appellant continuously for the period of more than two years immediately after presentation of the divorce petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. B.R. Mehta that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the contents of letters dated 9.7.1974 (Ex. 1), 26.7.1974 (Ex. 2), 6.8.1974 (Ex. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant Mr. B.R. Mehta that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the contents of letters dated 9.7.1974 (Ex. 1), 26.7.1974 (Ex. 2), 6.8.1974 (Ex. 3) and 13.8.1974 (Ex. 4). I have gone through the contents of the letters Ex. 1 to 4 with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant. 9. I am of the view that the learned trial Court has committed no error in appreciating the testimonial value of the letters Ex. 1 to 4. Learned trial Court has committed no error in arriving at the conclusion that the presentation of the divorce petition after expiry of seven years from the date of writing of these letters by Bhagwati Lal to the respondent cannot said to have caused mental cruelty to the appellant. I concur with the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned trial Court. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court disbelieving mental cruelty to the appellant is eminently just and proper and does not require interference in the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited my attention towards Ex. 5, photograph of respondent with Bhagwati Lal. Learned trial Court has disbelieved photograph Ex. 5 as its negative was not produced before it. I am of the view that the learned trial Court has committed no error in disbelieving the photograph Ex. 5. Suffice it to say in this regard that in modern scientific era, such photograph can be easily manipulated, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed no error in disbelieving the photograph Ex. 5 in absence of its negative. 11. Nothing has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has committed any error in appreciating oral and documentary testimonial on record. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to differ from the findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court on point of adultery, mental cruelty and desertion. In my considered opinion, learned trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the suit for divorce filed by appellant under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of adultery, desertion and mental cruelty.Consequently, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. In my considered opinion, learned trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the suit for divorce filed by appellant under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of adultery, desertion and mental cruelty.Consequently, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree dated 21.10.1991 passed by the learned trial Court is affirmed.Appeal Dismissed. *******