JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 9 of 2004/2003. The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court because the suit for damages she sought against her husband, defendant No. 1, has been dismissed. 2. The challenge to the impugned judgment and decree is on the grounds inter-alia that the same is against the facts and law applicable hence, not legally sustainable. The Court below has based its findings on conjecture and surmises and the evidence available on record has not been appreciated in its right perspective. The plaint Ext. P-X is stated to be not taken into consideration. As a matter of fact, this document, according to him amply demonstrates that her husband, defendant No. 1 has lower down her prestige in the public at large. 3. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have solemnized their marriage in the year 1986 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. It is claimed that out of this wedlock, three children namely Nishi Devi, Rinku and Shalu Devi are born to plaintiff from the lions of defendant No. 1. The behaviour of defendant No. 1 towards his children and plaintiff became cruel and it has been a cause of litigation between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It is proforma defendant No. 2 Ganga Ram allegedly her cousin who helped her out at every stage. Her husband defendant No. 1 succeeded in obtaining a decree of divorce against her ex-parte and it is on account of efforts of proforma defendant No. 2, the ex-parte decree was ultimately set aside by the Court. Defendant No. 1 with an ulterior motive filed a petition under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which was dismissed by the Court with the observations that the said petition was filed merely to get rid of mother of the children in order to malign her reputation and lower down her prestige in the eyes of public at large. 4. The plaintiff filed civil suit, the plaint whereof is Ext. 4. The plaintiff filed civil suit, the plaint whereof is Ext. P-X against her and also proforma defendant No. 2 for declaration that she is living in adultery with proforma defendant No. 2 and as such sought the declaration that their marriage stands dissolved as the plaintiff was not obeying the customary laws as applicable to them and to the contrary leading an adulterous life with proforma defendant No. 2. The decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the plaintiff (defendant No. 1 in the suit Ext. P-x) to claim herself as his wife nor to enter the child born to her in his name has, therefore, been sought. Defendant No. 1 has allegedly lower down her prestige and as such she allegedly is entitled to claim damages against him. 5. The suit was resisted and contested by defendant No. 1. In the written statement, the objections qua its maintainability were raised. On merits, while admitting that two children were born to plaintiff out of wedlock, he has denied the paternity of 3rd child who allegedly is born when she had withdrawn from her company. It is denied that he played fraud and obtained the decree of divorce against her, rather the decree of divorce, of course ex-parte was passed in that suit. The decree was passed when she failed to put in appearance despite due service. It is submitted that proforma defendant No. 2 Ganga Ram is the root cause of all troubles, which arose in their marital relations. The allegations he leveled against her are not false and rather come to be proved as true in the Court of law. Therefore, he is stated to be not at all responsible to lower down the reputation of plaintiff and it is rather she who has spoiled her reputation and image in the eyes of public at large. 6. In replication, the plaintiff has denied the contents to the contrary in the written statement being wrong. On merits, reiterated the case as set out in the plaint. 7. On such pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 6,00,000/- as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law, as alleged? OPD. 4. Relief. 8. 7. On such pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages of Rs. 6,00,000/- as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law, as alleged? OPD. 4. Relief. 8. The plaintiff has himself stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and examined Sh. Kanshi Ram as PW-2 and Smt. Satya Devi as PW-3. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 has himself stepped into the witness box as DW-1 and placed reliance on the documentary evidence. 9. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence comprising oral as well as documentary has arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove her case as set out in the plaint and as such, not entitled to the decree of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of damages she allegedly sustained on false allegations that she is leading an adulterous life with proforma defendant No. 2 are not proved. 10. On hearing Mr. J.R. Poswal, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned counsel representing defendant No. 1 as well as going through the record of the case, following points arise for determination in this appeal. 1. Whether learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its right perspective and as a result thereof the findings as recorded are vitiated and the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable? 2. Final order. Point No. 1. 11. On analyzing the rival submissions and also the re-appraisal of the evidence available on record, admittedly the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are wife and husband in relation. They solemnized the marriage in the year 1986. Out of this wedlock, two children were born to them and as regards the 3rd child, who was born to her in the year 2000, there is dispute qua her paternity. 12. In terms of the findings recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in the judgment Ext. D13 passed in an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. In terms of the findings recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in the judgment Ext. D13 passed in an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since as per one version of the plaintiff, she was residing separately from her husband, defendant No. 1 from middle of June 1997/July 1998, therefore, birth of a female child on 6-7th February/March, 2000 cannot be said to be conceived by her while living in the company of defendant No. 1. Any how, the dispute qua paternity of 3rd child is not yet adjudicated upon by any Civil Court. 13. Now, if coming to the allegations allegedly defamatory, true it is that Civil Suit No. 573/I/11/03 was filed by defendant No. 1 against the plaintiff and so called adulterer, proforma defendant No. 2. The suit was filed by defendant No. 1 with the allegations that the plaintiff was living in adultery with defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has placed reliance on the plaint Ex. P-X. Such allegations find mentioned in the plaint. The suit, however, has not been decided on merits and rather being barred by the principle of res-judicata as admittedly during the pendency of the suit, the marriage of the plaintiff with defendant No. 1 was ordered to be dissolved in a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, of course ex parte. The ex parte decree no doubt has now been quashed and set aside, however after the decision of aforesaid civil suit. Meaning thereby that there is no adjudication on merits that the allegations of adultery leveled by defendant No.1 in the plaint Ext. P-X stand decided on merits. Otherwise also, in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the plaintiff- wife against defendant No.1-husband, it has been held that she is living in adultery with proforma defendant No.2. Though, again such findings cannot be said to be conclusive, however, some weightage needs to be given to them and if it is so, there is no question of claiming damages by the plaintiff against defendant No.1. 14. It is significant to note that similar Civil Suit No. 1/1 of 2005/2003 filed by Ganga Ram, the so called adulterer, proforma defendant No.2 herein for seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 14. It is significant to note that similar Civil Suit No. 1/1 of 2005/2003 filed by Ganga Ram, the so called adulterer, proforma defendant No.2 herein for seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- against defendant No.1 also stands dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2006, Ext. D-1 and D-2. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence has observed in the judgment Ext. D-1 that Sumati Devi, plaintiff herein had left the matrimonial home in the year 1997 and started living at her parental house. She instituted Civil and Criminal cases against her husband, defendant No.1 and it is Ganga Ram, the so called adulterer, plaintiff in that suit helped her out in those proceedings. Therefore, the trial Court while deciding that suit, taking note of the fact that proforma defendant No. 2 having rendered all kind of assistance to the plaintiff including attending to the Court cases she instituted against her husband, defendant No. 1 and that a child was born to her after she abandoned the company of her husband has observed that the same were sufficient to suspect she having been leading an adulterous life with proforma defendant No. 2. Therefore, no case was found to be made out that it is on account of act of omission and commission attributed to defendant No. 1, the prestige of Ganga Ram, adulterer, plaintiff in that suit was lowered down and as such, the suit was dismissed vide judgment Ext. D-1. The judgment Ext. D-I, therefore, is a material piece of evidence and rightly taken into consideration by learned trial Court while declining the decree to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- sought to be passed by her against defendant No. 1. 15. Now if coming to the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3, the plaintiff examined in support of her case, the perusal of their statements reveal that the same is hardly of any help to the plaintiff’s case as they both have stated in one voice that neither they perused the contents of Ext. P-X nor were they aware about the same. Therefore, their statements to the contrary in their examination-in-chief that defendant No. 1 in a suit filed against plaintiff has rightly leveled false allegations of she having been leading an adulterous life with Ganga Ram cannot be believed to be true because when the plaint Ext. P-X nor were they aware about the same. Therefore, their statements to the contrary in their examination-in-chief that defendant No. 1 in a suit filed against plaintiff has rightly leveled false allegations of she having been leading an adulterous life with Ganga Ram cannot be believed to be true because when the plaint Ext. P-X was not perused by them, there was no occasion for them to have stated so. 16. In view of the re-appraisal of the given facts and circumstances and also the evidence available on record, it would not be improper to conclude that the Court below has appreciated the same in its right perspective and has not committed any illegality or irregularity while dismissing the suit. The judgment and decree under challenge being legally and factually sustainable rather deserves to be affirmed. 17. In view of the above, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 9 of 2004/03 is affirmed. No orders so as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.