ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondent. By the judgment and order under appeal dated 11th December, 2009 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohtas at Sasaram has dismissed appellant's Matrimonial Suit bearing No. 102 of 2006 and has refused to dissolve the marriage by grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The material issues for the purpose of divorce were issue Nos. 3 and 4 dealing with the allegations of illicit relation of respondent with other person who was not made a party as per Patna High Court Rules and cruelty by the respondent against the appellant. 2. The discussion made by the learned Principal Judge with regard to these issues discloses that the appellant was the sole witness from his side and the Court found that he failed to prove the allegations of adultery as well as that of cruelty. The respondent has filed written statement and alleged demand of dowry and cruelty to her and she examined herself as well as two other witnesses in support of her case. It has come on record that appellant had alleged illicit relation of the respondent with a person who as per evidence of the respondent, was her uncle and the Court found the allegation to be without any evidence. It has also come on record that out of the wedlock a daughter was born to the parties in 1993. From submissions advanced at bar, it is clear that the daughter was living with her mother and she arranged for her marriage but due to unfortunate accident she died in the year 2010. 3. After carefully going through the material, we do not find any such evidence or circumstances which may persuade us to reverse the findings given by the Family Court. 4. The acts of torture were allegedly directed also against the parents of the appellant but he did not examine them as witnesses nor anyone else has come to support his evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no good ground to entertain this appeal. 4. The acts of torture were allegedly directed also against the parents of the appellant but he did not examine them as witnesses nor anyone else has come to support his evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no good ground to entertain this appeal. It is, accordingly dismissed at the' stage of Order 41 Rule 11, C.P.C. If arrears of maintenance ordered in favour of the respondents have not been paid then she would be at liberty to pursue execution proceeding and the Court concerned is directed to take effective steps to ensure that maintenance amount is regularly paid to the respondent in accordance with law.