JUDGMENT 1. - In this miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 judgment and decree dated 01.12.1998 passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Misc. Case No.92/94 is under challenge. 2. According to facts of the case, respondent No.1 filed application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for granting decree of divorce against appellant on the ground of cruelty and adultery before the District Judge, Bhilwara. It is alleged in the application that the appellant and applicant-respondent No.1 got married 7-8 years before filing application for divorce and, after marriage, behaviour of the appellant became cruel towards her and she was ousted by the appellant from the matrimonial home. Further, it is alleged that the appellant had contracted second marriage, therefore, it was prayed that decree of divorce may be granted. 3. The appellant filed reply to the application and refuted all the allegations and submitted that he is ready and willing to live with the applicant and he was also ready to maintain her. Allegation of second marriage was refuted by the appellant. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, learned lower Court framed seven issues and, thereafter, opportunity to lead evidence was given to both the parties. From the side of respondent-applicant, statements of three witnesses were recorded and from the side of the appellant, two witnesses were produced in defence. 5. After recording evidence both the sides, the case was finally heard and, vide the impugned judgment, learned trial Court decided issue of cruelty against applicant-respondent No.1. Further, while deciding issue No.2, the trial Court held that there is evidence of appellant's second marriage with respondent No.2 Shanti, therefore, learned trial Court granted decree of divorce in favour of respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 01.12.1998. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that decree has been granted on the ground of second marriage by the appellant and said finding has been given while deciding issue No.2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that for adjudication of issue No.2 learned lower Court has failed to consider major contradictions in the statement of respondent No.1. It is also argued that no cogent evidence has been produced with regard to second marriage with Shanti, therefore, the finding recorded on issue No.2 is totally perverse and without any basis. 7. It is also argued that no cogent evidence has been produced with regard to second marriage with Shanti, therefore, the finding recorded on issue No.2 is totally perverse and without any basis. 7. With regard to evidence of A.W.-2 Bahadur Singh, it is submitted that he has not been able to prove the factum of alleged second marriage between the appellant and respondent No.2, therefore, on the basis of statement of such witness the learned trial Court has committed an error while granting decree of divorce on the basis of second marriage. 8. While inviting attention towards statement of A.W.-34 Mithulal and consideration of his statement in the adjudication by the trial Court, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that A.W.-3 Mithulal does not prove the factum of second marriage though he has deposed that he received the invitation card but the said card was not produced before the Court for perusal, therefore, statement of such type of witness cannot be accepted. The trial Court while deciding the issue in favour of applicant-respondent No.1 has proceeded on totally irrelevant facts and on the basis of assumption that notice of respondent No.2 was sent to the house of the appellant and respondent No.2 opened the door but refused to accept the notice and shut the door, therefore, process server reported that although Shanti was in the house she deliberately avoided service and while refusing to accept the notice shut the door of the house, therefore, service by affixing the notice on the house was found proper by the learned trial Court. It is vehemently argued that the report of the process server was not in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, accepting the said fact by the learned lower Court is totally erroneous. 9. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that near relative of the applicant was an employee of the Court, therefore, from perusal of the report of the process server it is clearly borne out that the same is result of manipulation, therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed. 9. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that near relative of the applicant was an employee of the Court, therefore, from perusal of the report of the process server it is clearly borne out that the same is result of manipulation, therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed. Lastly, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned lower Court has erred in law while deciding issue No.3 in favour of applicant-respondent No.1 because it is specifically stated in the writtenstatement and in the evidence of the appellant that he is ready and willing to keep and maintain respondent No.1 but the learned trial Court totally failed to consider the submissions of the appellant, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dated 01.12.1998 in favour of respondent No.1 deserves to be quashed. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that material evidence with regard to second marriage was produced before the Court by respondent No.1 and learned trial Court gave categorical finding after due consideration of the evidence on record that appellant got re-married with Shanta and appellant and Shanta are living as husband and wife and, not only that, a daughter is also born out of the subsequent wedlock, therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal. 11. 11. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the finding of issue No.2 which is as follows : " 13 & fook|d la[;k nks%& bl fcUnq dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ;k ij gS fd foi{kh Hkaojyky us fnukad 30-8-91 dks foi{kh la[;k 2 eq0 'kkarh iq=h 'kadjyky ds lkFk f}fr; fookg dj mls viuh iRuh ds :i esa j[k j[kk gSA bl fcUnq ds lUnHkZ esa fo)ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ;k dk ;gh rdZ gS fd izkFkhZ;k jkeikyh izk0lk0 us rks bl rF; dks iwjh rjg fl} fd;k gh gS lkFk gh ;g Hkh fl) fd;k gS fd 'kkarh ,oa Hkaojyky ds vkilh lalxZ ls ,d yM+dh Hkh gS tks Hkh thfor gSA Hkaojyky ds vkilh lalxZ ls ,d yM+dh Hkh gS tks Hkh thfor gSA Hkaojyky o 'kkarh ds fnukad 30-5-1991 dks laiUu gq;s fookg esa mifLFkr ehBwyky izk0lk0 3 us Hkh bl rF; dks c[kqch fl) fd;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd cgknqjflag izk0lk0 3 us Hkh bl rF; dks c[kqch fl) fd;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd cgknqjflag izk0lk0 2 jkeikyh dk cM+k HkkbZ gS] mlus ;g Hkh fl) fd;k gS fd foi{kh Hkaojyky }kjk nwljk fookg djus ds le; muds }kjk LFkxu vkns'k Hkh yk;k x;k Fkk ysfdu mlds ckotwn Hkh Hkaojyky us fookg dj fy;k rFkk Hkaojyky o 'kkarh ds ,d 6&7 ekg dh iq=h Hkh gS ftlds [k.Mu esa dksbZ fo'oluh; lk{; ugha vkbZ gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd Hkaojyky ds ?kj ds irs ij gh foi{kh la[;k nks 'kkarh dh rkehy Hksth xbZ Fkh ftls 'kkarh us ?kj ij rs gq;s Hkh Lohdkj ugha dh rFkk fdokM+ can dj fy;s ftlds dkj.k pLikuxh ls rkehy djok;h x;h Fkh tks i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA 14& fo}ku vf/koDrk foi{kh Hkaojyky dk rdZ gS fd fdlh 'kkarh uked efgyk ls Hkaojyky }kjk nwljk fookg djuk dfYir gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd u dsoy Hkaojyky us bu rF;ksa ls bUdkj fd;k gS vfirq foi{kh Hkaojyky ds iM+ksl esa jgus okys txnh'k viz0lk02 us Hkh 'kkarh uked efgyk dk Hkaojyky dh iRuh ds :i esa jgus dks xyr crk;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd foi{kh Hkaojyky }kjk 'kkarh uked efgyk ls f}fr; fookg dj fy;k x;k gksrk rks jk'ku dkMZ o vU; izys[kh; lkexzh izLrqr dh tk ldrh Fkh] ftuesa 'kkarh nsoh ds ifr ds :i esa Hkaojyky dk uke fy[kk x;k gksrk] ysfdu ,slh dksbZ lkexzh Hkh izLrqr ugha gqbZ gSA 15& geus mHk; i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;kA 16& bl ekeys esa eq0 jkeikyh us vius c;kuksa esa ;g Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd Hkaojyky us daFkkfj;k xkao dh yM+dh 'kkarh iq=h 'kadjyky ds lkFk nwljk fookg dj fy;k gS rFkk 'kkarh ,oa Hkaoyky ifr iRuh dh rjg jg jgs gSaA muds ,d yM+dh Hkh iSnk gqbZ tks thfor gSA izfrijh{k.k esa jkeikyh us bl ckr dks Hkh Li"V fd;k fd mldk ufugky ek.Myx<+ esa gS] tgka og vkrh tkrh gS rc mlus 'kkarh dks ns[kk gS blfy;s og dgrh gS fd foi{kh us 'kkarh ls nwljh 'kkknh dj yh gSA jkeikyh izk0lk0 1 dh lk{; dks bl vk/kkj ij vk{ksfir djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gS fd Hkaojyky us 'kknh fdl rkjh[k dks dh rFkk mldh ckjkr esa dkSu dkSu O;fDr x;s] fdfl iafMr us 'kknh djok;h mudk foLr`r o.kZu djus esa jkeikyh vkleFkZ jgh gS ysfdu gekjs er ls jkeikyh ds ls mDr rF;ksa ds lUnHkZ esa tkudkjh j[kus dh vis{kk Hkh ugha dh tk ldrh Fkh D;ksafd mlus ,slk dFku ugha fd;k gS fd mlds lkeus Hkaojyky dk 'kkark ds lkFk fookg gqvk vfirq tc mlus vius ufugky ek.Myx< esa tkus ij Hkaojyky dks 'kkark ds lkFk ifr iRuh ds :i ls jgrs ns[kk rFkk muds 5&6 ekg dh ,d yM+dh Hkh ns[kh rks eq[; :i ls bl vk/kkj ij nwljh 'kknh dj ysus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa dksbZ vLokHkkfodrk ugha gSA izk0lk0 2 cgknqj flag tks jkeikyh dk HkkbZ gS] us Hkh vius c;ku esa bl 'kknh dh iqf"V dh gS rFkk ;g dFku fd;k gS fd daFkkfj;k xkao dh 'kkarh ls Hkaojyky us nwljh 'kknh dj yhA foi{kh ds yXu vk;s rks og U;k;ky; ls LFkxu vkns'k ysdj x;k Fkk fQj Hkh 'kknh dj yhA Hkaojyky ds ,d 6&7 ekg dh iq=h gksuk Hkh bl xokg us dFku fd;k gSA cgknqjflag dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd ek.Myx<+ esa mldk ufugky gS tks Hkaojyky ds ekSgYys esa gh gSA og vius ufugky ds dkj.k gh ek.Myx<+ tkrk gS rFkk 5&6 lky ls cjkcj Hkaojyky o 'kkarh dks ogka ns[k jgk gSA bl xokg dh lk{; esa ,slh dksbZ ckr mtkxj ugha gqbZ gS ftlls ;g izrhr gks fd bl fcUnq ds lUnHkZ esa cgknqjflag dh lk{; diksy dfYir o >wBh gSA izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls ehBw yky izk0lk0 3 dks izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlus fnukad 30-5-91 dks daFkkfj;k xkao dh 'kkarh iq=h 'kadjyky dk fookg Hkaojyky foi{kh la[;k ,d ds lkFk laiUu Lo;a ds lkeus gksuk dFku fd;k gSA bl xokg dk ;g Hkh dFku gS mldks 'kkarh ds firk 'kadjyky us fueU=.k fn;k Fkk ftl ij og Hkh fookg esa lfEefyr gksus x;k FkkA ehBwyky us iafMr txUukFk th czkgE.k fuoklh jkeiqfj;k ds }kjk fookg dh jLe laiUu djkuk Hkh dFku fd;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd Qsjs jkr ds 10&11 cts gq;s Fks rFkk ckjkr dks /kkdM+ksa ds edku ds vUnj Bgjk;k x;k FkkA Qsjs 'kadjyky ds ?kj ij gq;s FksA izfrijh{k.k esa bl xokg dh lk{; esa ,slh dksbZ ckr ugha vkbZ gS ftlls fd ehBwyky dh lk{; dks vfo'oluh; ekus tkus dk mfpr dkj.k izrhr gksA ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd foi{kh la[;k nks 'kkarh ij rkehy foi{kh la[;k ,d Hkaojyky ds ?kj ds irs ij gh tkjh dh xbZ FkhA mDr rkehy ij rkehy dqfuank dh fjiksVZ Hkh egRoiw.kZ gSA izn'kZ 1 uksfVl ij rkehy dqfuank us ;g vadu fd;k gS fd 'kkarh edku ij gksrs gq;s Hkh uksfVl ysus ds fy;s ckgj ugha vkbZ rFkk edku dk fdokM can dj fn;kA [kqys edku ij mDr uksfVl pLik fd;k x;kA ;g Hkh ,d ,slh ifjfLFkfr gS tks fd izkFkhZ;k dh lk{; dks gh lacy iznku dj jgh gSA 17& ;gka ;g vadu djuk mfpr gksxk fd tc izkFkhZ;k izkjaHk ls gh ;g fof'k"B o fuf'pr dFku djds vkbZ gS fd foi{kh Hkaojyky us fnukad 30-5-1991 dks 'kkarh iq=h 'kadjyky fuoklh daFkkfj;k ls f}fr; fookg dj fy;k gS] rks bl rF; dk [k.Mu djus ds fy;s og 'kkarh ds firk 'kadjyky vFkok 'kkarh dks izLrqr djus ds fy;s ryc djk;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh dj ldrk FkkA ;fn 'kkarh dk fookg Hkaojyky ds lkFk ugha gqvk gksrk rks 'kadjyky o 'kkarh Hkh bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa Hkaojyky dh vksj ls lk{; esa mifLFkr gksdj ,sls rF; dk [k.Mu djus esa izlUurk eglwl djrs] ftlds }kjk 'kakrh dks Hkh ,d i{kdkj ds :i esa yisVk x;k gSA ysfdu ,slk dksbZ iz;kl Hkaoyky ds }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vizkFkhZ Hkaoyky ds }kjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vizkFkhZ Hkaojyky o mldh vksj ls lk{; esa izLrqr xokg txnh'k pUnz ds ;g dg nsus ek= ls fd Hkaojyky us 'kkarh iq=h 'kadjyky ls nwljk fookg ugha fd;k izkFkhZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; dks udkjus dk mfpr vk/kkj ugha curk rFkk tks lk{; i=koyh ij vkbZ gS] mlls laHkkoukvksa dh ckgqY;rk ds ekin.M dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s lk{; dk ijh{k.k djus ij ;gh fu"d"kZ fudy jgk gS fd foi{kh la[;k ,d us foi{kh la[;k nks Jhefr 'kkarh iq=h 'kadjyky ds lkFk f}rh; fookg dj fy;k gS rFkk os ifr iRuh ds :i esa jg jgs gSaA vr% ;g fook|d izkFkhZ;k ds i{k esa rFkk foi{kh Hkaojyky ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA " 12. It is true that issues No.1 and 5 were decided against respondent No.1 with regard to allegations of cruelty levelled by the applicant and issue No.3 was not pressed by the respondent-applicant. In regard to issue No.4, finding has been given that it is related to issue No.2, therefore, no separate finding is required for decision of the said issue. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, it appears from the10 judgment that decree of divorce has been granted on the basis of proving issue No.2 by respondent No.1. To prove issue No.2, statements of A.W.-3 Mithulal and A.W.-2 Bahadur Singh and applicant-respondent No.1 herself were taken into account. All these three witnesses gave categorical statement that marriage of appellant Bhanwarlal and Shanti was solemnized on 30.05.1999. Upon perusal of statement of A.W.-3 Mithulal, it is revealed that he has categorically stated that stay order was also obtained upon the second marriage of Bhanwarlal but, inspite of the stay order, he got married with Shanti. 14. A.W.-2 Bahadur Singh, who is brother of applicant Rampali, stated in his statement that he saw the appellant and Shanti living together at Mandalgarh and A.W.-3 gave statement that on 30.05.1991 marriage of appellant Bhanwarlal and Shanti was solemnized in front of him and he is eye-witness to the marriage. In his statement, it is categorically stated that father of Shanti gave invitation to him for participation in the marriage and marriage was solemnized by one Pandit Jagannath ji r/o village Rampuriya and, at the time of marriage, he was present and marriage took place at about 10 - 11 P.M. on 30.05.1991.11. 15. Further, notices of this case were issued to Shanti also, who was in the house, but, she refused to accept the notice and shut the door of the house. In this view of the matter, there is no question of disbelieving the report of the process server given on Ex.-1. In my opinion, learned trial Court has applied thorough mind to the facts and evidence of the case and rightly held that appellant Bhanwarlal got re-married with Shanta and he has also one daughter born out of the subsequent wedlock. The finding arrived by the learned trial Court on issue No.2 cannot be treated as perverse or erroneous; more so, it is based upon sound appreciation of the evidence on record. The finding arrived by the learned trial Court on issue No.2 cannot be treated as perverse or erroneous; more so, it is based upon sound appreciation of the evidence on record. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this miscellaneous appeal. 16. Hence, this miscellaneous appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******