JUDGMENT 1. This first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been filed by defendant against judgment and decree of divorce dated 08.03.1996, passed by learned District Judge, Seoni in C.S. No.11-A/1993. 2. In brief, the case of plaintiff-respondent is that her husband (defendant) is Sunni Musalman and similarly she too is Summi Musalman and are being governed by Hanfi law. In Muslim Community, the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (in short the Act of 1939) is applicable. The marriage between plaintiff and defendant took place on 23.05.1982 and both of them lived together few days earlier to 05.06.1987 but with effect from 05.06.1987, they are residing separately. It is also the case of the plaintiff that a daughter has been born out of their wed-lock and whose name is Shahnaz Bano. Further it has been pleaded that in the year 1990 defendant has solemnized a second marriage in village Chidi, Tahsil Lakhnadon on 16.07.1990. The plaintiff through her counsel sent a notice to the defendant to make payment of Mehar and the said notice was replied by defendant on 31.07.1990. All these facts are not disputed. 3. As per the case of plaintiff, after six months of her marriage, the mother and sister of the defendant started ill-treating her and were also causing marpeet in the presence of defendant. The defendant's brother-in-law (her husband's sister's husband) used to hurl abuses to her. In these facts and circumstances, plaintiff was put under fear that the child which is in her womb may be effected adversely. Eventually with the consent of defendant and his mother, the plaintiff went to stay at Seoni at her parent's house, where she gave birth to a female child who was later on named as Shahnaz Bano. After giving birth to the daughter, the plaintiff went back to her nuptial home alongwith the newly born female child but the behaviour of defendant was not changed. He was also not taking due care of her. It is the further case of the plaintiff that on 05.06.1987, the cousin brother of plaintiff was going to be married, as a result she came to Seoni at her parent's place to attend the marriage, in which her husband (defendant) also came but he did not take care of plaintiff as well as innocent daughter and he came back to his village Mehgaon alone. It is her further case that by following the custom and rights, the defendant had never gone to the house of her parents to carry out Vida ceremony but secretly he was going to arrange a second marriage and ultimately in the year 1990, he solemnized a second marriage by abandoning the plaintiff. According to plaint averments, defendant has kept his second wife with him but he has become totally negligent towards her. During the period, when she was residing with the defendant, she was being ill-treated in cruelsome manner but his attitude and behaviour towards his second wife is quite cordial and the plaintiff is not being treated in the same manner by the defendant as he is treating his second wife. The defendant did not arrange and mange to provide maintenance to the plaintiff till 1988 when the suit was filed and despite a notice was sent to him making demand of payment of Mehar, the same has not been paid to her. Hence, on these premised submissions, present suit for dissolution of the marriage under the Act of 1939 has been filed by the plaintiff. 4. Defendant-appellant except the facts which are admitted, denied the other plaint averments and specifically denied that his mother, sister or brother-in-law ever ill-treated the plaintiff. It is also pleaded that their behaviour is not cruelsome against her. According to the defendant, plaintiff is habitual to live in a city atmosphere and therefore she is not accustomed and to manage herself in the living style of village and because she does not want to live in the village, therefore she was insisting the defendant to live at Seoni which was not possible for him because he is having agricultural land in the village and therefore, he was always advising the plaintiff to change her attitude and life style and should adjust with the village life but her behaviour was not changed. Further, it has been pleaded that when plaintiff went to attend the marriage of her cousin brother at Seoni, the defendant also went to attend the marriage. Thereafter, when he asked her to accompany him at his village Mehgaon, she refused and on account of her sweet will, she is living at Seoni. Eventually, looking to the health condition of mother, which was deteriorating day today, he (defendant) solemnized second marriage in the year 1990. Thereafter, when he asked her to accompany him at his village Mehgaon, she refused and on account of her sweet will, she is living at Seoni. Eventually, looking to the health condition of mother, which was deteriorating day today, he (defendant) solemnized second marriage in the year 1990. According to the defendant, he is not neglecting the plaintiff and therefore, the suit be dismissed. 5. On the basis of averments made in the plaint and the denial in the written statement, learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit by passing a decree of divorce. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the defendant. 6. Two contentions have been raised by learned counsel for the appellant that as per defendant, the plaintiff was being ill-treated by his mother, sister and brother-in-law. Learned counsel submits that it is not the case of plaintiff that her husband (defendant-appellant) is cruel towards her and as per her own case, the family members of defendant are cruel and if that would be the position, a decree of dissolution of marriage cannot be passed. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to Section 2(viii) of the Act of 1939. His second contention is that in absence of cogent evidence that the appellant is not properly maintaining and is offering love and affection which a wife is entitled and which he is showering to his second wife, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in law in passing the decree of dissolution of marriage. By inviting my attention to clause (f) of Section 2(viii), it has been contended that if the husband does not treat the second wife equitably in accordance to the injunctions of Quran, a decree of dissolution of marriage cannot be passed. Hence, it has been prayed that by allowing this appeal, the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. 7. Despite plaintiff-respondent has been served, nobody is appearing for her. 8. I have heard Shri Adil Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. 7. Despite plaintiff-respondent has been served, nobody is appearing for her. 8. I have heard Shri Adil Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. In order to appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, two question emerges, which this court has to decide and they are :- (i) Whether the factum of causing cruelty by defendant-appellant to plaintiff has been proved in stricto sensu in terms of Section 2 (viii) of the Act of 1939? (ii) Whether the defendant is not treating the plaintiff in like manner as he is treating his second wife ? Regarding question No.(i) 10. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that as per plaintiff's own showing the appellant is not cruel but his family members are cruel towards the wife at the first blush appears to be quite attractive but on deeper scrutiny I find it to be devoid of any merit. In order to meet out the argument, it would be germane to appreciate the evidence as well as Section 2(viii) (a) and (f) of the Act of 1939, which reads thus :- “(viii) that the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say :- (a) habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment, or (f) if he has more wives than one, does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran;” 11. Plaintiff Vikarun Nisha has been examined as P.W.-2. She has specifically stated in her testimony that after her marriage, she was living in her nuptial house, where she was residing with the family of her husband which consists of mother and three sisters. She has specifically stated that she stayed only for 2-3 days in her nuptial house and thereafter she had gone back to her parents house but soon thereafter she came to her nuptial house where she started living. Earlier the behaviour of the husband as well as his family members were cordial but after 3-4 months, her mother-in-law and husband stated ill-treating her. Earlier the behaviour of the husband as well as his family members were cordial but after 3-4 months, her mother-in-law and husband stated ill-treating her. Her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law were falsely leveling incorrect allegations upon her and were taunting as well as scolding upon her that she is not cooking the meals properly and used to sleep even after the dawn hours. The brother-in-law of defendant (defendant's sister's husband) is residing one kilometer far away from her nuptial house and when he used to come at her house false complaints about her were being made to him by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and thereafter her brother-in-law used to hurl the abuses of mother and sister to her and those hurls were so vile and against the modesty of a woman that they cannot be spoken in the open Court. Specifically she says that at that juncture, her husband also used to remain present, but he (defendant) never intervened in the matter and never asked his brother-in-law not to hurl abuses and scold upon his own wife. She has further stated that after 3-4 years of her marriage, she was being beaten by her sister-in-law (husband's sister) Shahida Begum and she also threw a Katora (big size bowl) upon her, which struck her head and at that juncture defendant was also present but he did not intervene. She has also stated that her brother-in-law while hurling abuses also used to say her to quit nuptial home. Ultimately looking to the untolerable behaviour of family members of her husband which occurred in his presence for several times and all the times he was simply standing like a silent spectator, she left nuptial home and went to the house of one Mullaji. In her testimony, she has also stated that when she was residing at the house of Mullaji, at that time, only rice was being sent by her husband to eat and some time that too was not even sent to her. Eventually, the meal was being provided to her by the said Mullaji. She has also stated that her husband caused marpeet to her twice. 12. The further evidence of this witness is that from the house of Mullaji she went back to her parents house where she is residing for last eight years. Eventually, the meal was being provided to her by the said Mullaji. She has also stated that her husband caused marpeet to her twice. 12. The further evidence of this witness is that from the house of Mullaji she went back to her parents house where she is residing for last eight years. During this period, there was a marriage in her family, which was also attended by the defendant but he did not carry to her nuptial home. This witness was cross-examined at length but nothing has been carved out from her testimony in order to disbelieve her statement. 12. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by the evidence of her own mother Mehrunnisha, who has categorically stated that in her presence also her son-in-law (defendant) used to hurl abuses to plaintiff. According to this witness, plaintiff told her that she was being ill-treated by defendant as well as by his family members and has also deposed that the brother-in-law of defendant was used to hurl the abuses of mother and sister to her daughter (the plaintiff), but, defendant never intervened, though he was through out present. 13. The factum of quiting the plaintiff from her nuptial house and she was living for some days with Mullaji is also corroborated by the evidence of said Mullaji Abbdul Mallick (P.W.-3), who has categorically stated that he is the resident of village Mehgaon. He further says that plaintiff stayed with him in his house for 15-20 days, near about 4 to 6 years ago. Needless to say that plaintiff's nuptial home is also in the same village. This witness further says that defendant also came to live in his house after 8 days but thereafter he went back and thereafter he did not turn up. In cross-examination, he has stated that plaintiff used to say that quarrel took place in her nuptial house. 14. According to me, the evidence of P.W.-3 Abbdul Mallick, who is an independent witness and is the resident of same village where defendant is residing is having a great weightage that plaintiff was residing at his house and defendant also stayed initially for 2-3 days with plaintiff, but, later on the defendant had gone back to his home and thereafter, the plaintiff stayed in his house for near about 15 days. 15. 15. Although the defendant was examined as D.W.-1 and all the allegations, which are stated against him were denied by him in his testimony. But according to me, the evidence of plaintiff and her witnesses is more reliable and the learned trial Court after marshalling the evidence has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the evidence of plaintiff is more reliable. It is well settled law that if two view are possible on the statement of witnesses and the view which has been taken by the learned trial Court, until and unless that view is not at all possible from the evidence, the appellate court should normally accept the view, taken by the learned trial Court. In this regard, I may profitably place reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court Nizammuddin Ahmed Vs. Narmada Prasad and others 1976 JLJ 6 and also in Madhusudan Das Vs. Smt. Narayanibai and others AIR 1983 SC 114 . Apart from this, Abbdul Mallick (P.W.-3), who is also a resident of defendant's own village, why he will depose against defendant. Needless to say this witness is an independent witness. 16. On testing the aforesaid factual aspect and the evidence which is placed on record on the touchstone and anvil of Section 2(viii)(a), it would reveal that the scope of cruelty of conduct cannot be viewed with narrower sense. Merely because defendant never assaulted or caused marpeet to the plaintiff, it cannot be said that he has not committed any cruelty. To me, there is pleading of plaintiff in para 4.A and 4.B of the plaint that the behavior of the defendant towards her was also cruel and he has also caused marpeet to her. This plea she has also proved in her testimony and which I have considered hereinabove. Apart from this there is overwhelming evidence of plaintiff that in presence of her husband (defendant), his family members used to ill-treat and were causing marpeet to her, but, he never intervened. Not only this, whenever her brother-in-law used to come to her nuptial house, false complaints about her were being made and he too also used to scold and hurl abuses of mother and sister to her. Not only this, whenever her brother-in-law used to come to her nuptial house, false complaints about her were being made and he too also used to scold and hurl abuses of mother and sister to her. It is to be noted that while deposing such type of evidence, plaintiff, who is a lady on account of shyness as well as modesty of woman may not be exposed, has deposed that the abuses which were being hurled by her brother-in-law cannot be stated in the open court. Therefore, this court can infer that what was the height of those abuses, which were being showered by defendant's brother-in-law upon plaintiff. Needless to say that in presence of the husband (defendant), hurling of the abuses by his brother-in-law took place, hence, I am of the view that the conduct of the husband-appellant would come under the ambit and scope of clause (viii)(a) to Section 2 of the Act of 1939. Thus the question No.1 is decided against the appellant and the finding of learned Trial Court that the defendant was cruel towards the plaintiff is hereby affirmed. Regarding question No.2 17. As a matter of fact, this fact has also been proved from the evidence of plaintiff that she is not being treated in like manner as defendant is treating his second wife by showering love and affection upon her which a wife is entitled from her husband. It is to be inferred that maintenance amount was also not being sent to her despite plaintiff was residing separately with defendant for last eight years. It is the admission of the defendant that he is properly maintaining his second wife at his own residence. The factum of separate living of plaintiff from defendant is also admitted by him. In cross-examination para 3, defendant has admitted that he did not send any amount to plaintiff for maintenance by money order, although he is saying that he was sending money to her for maintenance but once he has admitted that he was sending the maintenance, it was for him to explain by which mode it was being sent to the plaintiff. But there is no evidence of defendant in that regard. But there is no evidence of defendant in that regard. Hence, it can be inferred that although defendant is keeping his second wife according to the direction in the Quran, but he is not treating equally in accordance with the injunctions of Quran to the plaintiff and therefore, according to me, the ground of dissolution of marriage envisaged under clause (f) to Section 2 (ii) is also proved. Thus the second question is also decided against the appellant. 18. Apart from aforesaid facts and circumstances, which are decided against the appellant, on going through para 15 of the finding recorded by learned trial Court this court finds that defendant is also not sending any maintenance to plaintiff for last 8 years. This finding is based upon correct appreciation of evidence, which I have marshalled hereinabove and no reason is shown to deviate from those reasonings recorded by the learned trial Court. Hence, according to me, the plaintiff is also entitled to a decree of dissolution under Section 2(viii) of the Act of 1939, which mandates that a decree of dissolution of marriage be passed if the husband has neglected or has failed to maintain his wife for a period of two years. Indeed learned Trial Court has also passed the decree on this ground also. 19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.