JUDGMENT : VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA, J. 1. Aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 8th October, 2007 the appellant has instituted the present appeal. 2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that non-appellant-wife- Smt. Santosh Devi, instituted an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the "Act of 1955"), with a prayer for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant-husband that was solemnized on 3rd October, 1997. The non-appellant-wife in her application instituted on 31st August, 2005, pleaded that the appellant-husband and his family members subjected to cruelty for dowry. It is pleaded case of the non-appellant-wife that she was subjected to mental and physical torture. Further the appellant-husband was a drunkard. On account of serious matrimonial discord, she left the matrimonial home and resided with her parents since 8th July, 1998. Narrating the incident of 21st January, 1998, the non-appellant wife also alleged sexual harassment at the hands of the brother of her father-in-law. 3. From the materials available on record, it is also reflected that the appellant-husband has instituted an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, on 4th February, 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights stating that the non-appellant-wife raised issues out of minor differences of opinion. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court below consolidated both the proceedings on 8th January, 2007. On the basis of pleadings of the parties framed issues on 8th January, 2007, which reads thus; 1. Whether non-appellant-Madan Lal and his family members subjected the applicant-wife to cruelty for deficiency in dowry and whether the non-applicant-husband caused mental cruelty and as a result of intoxication? 2. Whether the applicant-wife prevented the non-appellant husband of the conjugal rights for which the proceedings were pending before the Court for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. Whether the applicant was of questionable character for she gave birth to a child just after six months of marriage? 4. Whether the appellant-wife instituted proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, against the non-applicant-husband and his family members wherein they were acquitted? If yes, what its effect? 5. Relief ? 4. The trial Court in the backdrop of the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by the applicant-wife and materials available on record decided issue No. 1, in favour of the applicant-wife. If yes, what its effect? 5. Relief ? 4. The trial Court in the backdrop of the pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by the applicant-wife and materials available on record decided issue No. 1, in favour of the applicant-wife. Issue No. 2 to 4 were decided against the appellant-husband for no evidence was adduced in support of the written statement and stand in the response to the application for divorce. No document was brought on record to substantiate the fact that the applicant-wife instituted any proceedings against the appellant-husband and/or his family members in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh. The Court below also recorded a finding to the effect that no evidence was adduced while assailing the character of the applicant-wife on the ground of birth of a child just after six months of marriage. Even the non-applicant-husband did not appear before the Court to depose as a witness in support of the stand and written statement/reply filed in response to the application. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of the appeal asserted that the appellant-husband was not aware of the legal proceedings and the various dates on which the proceedings were conducted before the Court below and therefore, could not adduce any evidence. 6. According to the learned counsel, in the singular facts and circumstances of the case the Court below ought to have accorded yet another opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence. 7. It is further asserted that no explanation was furnished by the applicant-wife for the birth of the child within six months of marriage especially when the burden to prove this fact was upon her. 8. Learned counsel further urged that the criminal proceedings instituted for offense under Section 498-A, 323, 342 IPC, against the appellant and his family members is yet another conclusive evidence of cruelty by the applicant-wife wherein the appellant-husband and the family members have been acquitted. 9. Referring to the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, learned counsel asserted that the Court below committed an error while framing common issues in two different proceedings. For the appellant is illiterate and poor person, an opportunity to adduce evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. 10. 9. Referring to the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1955, learned counsel asserted that the Court below committed an error while framing common issues in two different proceedings. For the appellant is illiterate and poor person, an opportunity to adduce evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. 10. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for non-appellant-wife while supporting the impugned judgment and order dated 8th October, 2007, would submit that the Court below committed no illegality. The appellant-husband who treated the non-appellant-wife with mental and physical cruelty created circumstances wherein she had to leave the matrimonial home on 8th July, 1998 i.e within a year of marriage that was solemnized on 3rd October, 1997. It is further argued that the proceedings were consolidated by the Court below with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, and therefore, it is now not open to the appellant to raise any grievance on then aspect. 11. Referring to the findings arrived at by the Court below, learned counsel asserted that sufficient opportunity was accorded to the appellant-husband to adduce evidence but no evidence was brought on record so much so the appellant-husband himself did not appear before the Court below as witness in the proceedings instituted in the year 2005. The stand of the appellant that he was not aware of the proceedings before the Court below and the dates on which the Court below conducted the proceedings; is an afterthought and that too without any factual foundation for no material has been brought on record to substantiate the arguments for the factual matrix is contrary. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar so also carefully considered the impugned judgment and order dated 8th October, 2007. 13. Indisputably, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 3rd October, 1997 and the non-appellant-wife left the matrimonial home on 8th July, 1998 i.e within a year of the marriage. Non-appellant-wife instituted proceedings for divorce under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 on 31st August, 2005, of which the notice was issued and served on the appellant-husband who filed his response. Proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 were also instituted by the appellant-husband. Non-appellant-wife instituted proceedings for divorce under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 on 31st August, 2005, of which the notice was issued and served on the appellant-husband who filed his response. Proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 were also instituted by the appellant-husband. Both the proceedings were consolidated by the Court below with the consent of the counsel of the parties on 8th January, 2007, and issues were framed on the same date. 14. The non-appellant-wife appeared as witness (AW1) in support of the application seeking divorce. Her brother Ranjit, who supported her case, was examined as AW-2. 15. The appellant-husband neither appeared himself before the Court below to depose in support of the response filed to the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955, nor adduced any evidence. No material in support of the reply filed was brought on record. The Court below specifically recorded findings on a specific issue framed in the backdrop of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced by the non-appellant-wife. 16. As to the argument raised during the course of hearing about institution of proceedings for offense under Section 498A, 323, 342 IPC, no material was brought on record. Even the judgment by which the appellant-husband and his family members were acquitted; was not placed on record before the Court below so as to substantiate the stand in response to the application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. 17. Taking note of the pendency of the appeal at admission stage, this Court allowed two weeks time to the counsel for the appellant, as prayed by her to complete her instructions, if any, for the appellant was not in her contact since long. She was allowed time to complete her instructions as would be evident from the order-sheet drawn on 9th May, 2016. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that despite her best efforts, she would not establish any contact with the appellant so as to complete her instructions, and therefore, the matter was proceed on merits for final disposal. 18. No other point was raised for consideration on this Court. 19. For the reasons and discussion aforesaid the appeal instituted assailing the illegality and validity of judgment and order dated 8th October, 2007; is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore deserves, to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly