JUDGMENT : DR. A.K. RATH, J. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against confirming judgment. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that the marriage between him and defendant no.1 was solemnised on 23.02.1966. After marriage, dissensions cropped up in the family. Defendant no.1 had extra marital relationship with one Rama Chandra Das. He was serving in the Forest Department. He was posted at different places and wanted to take defendant no.1 with him. But then she refused to accompany him. In December 1970, defendant no.1 left his house and stayed with her parents. Thereafter, she had extra-marital relationship of defendant nos. 2 and 3. Defendant no.1 gave birth to two children, who are the off-springs of the illicit relationship of defendant no.1 with defendant nos.2 and 3. In 1975, defendant no.1 made an attempt for restitution of conjugal rights, but in vain. Therefore, she filed I.C.C. No. 40/77 for the offences under Secs.323/326/34 I.P.C. and Criminal Misc. Case No. 16/78 under Secs.125 Cr.P.C. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit for divorce. 3. The defendant no.1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to defendant no.1, after marriage she was ill-treated by her in-laws so also by the plaintiff. She was asked to stay at village Dangara to look after the cultivation and help her mother-in-law. The plaintiff visited her frequently. They had sexual relationship. As her health condition deteriorated, she requested the plaintiff to accompany him, but the plaintiff assaulted her. His brother and mother drove her out from the house. Thereafter, she filed a case claiming maintenance. The plaintiff had brought another woman to his house and kept her as his wife. Defendant nos.2 and 3 denied to have any relationship with defendant no.1 at any point of time. 4. On the, inter se, pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck three issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff has failed to substantiate the plea that defendant no.1 was leading an adulterous life. The plaintiff illtreated defendant no.1 and drove her out from the house. The plaintiff made a false accusation against defendant no.1 to avoid payment of maintenance. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed T.A. No. 22 of 1986 in the court of the learned District Judge, Koraput at Jeypore, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The plaintiff illtreated defendant no.1 and drove her out from the house. The plaintiff made a false accusation against defendant no.1 to avoid payment of maintenance. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed T.A. No. 22 of 1986 in the court of the learned District Judge, Koraput at Jeypore, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The appeal was admitted on 26.10.1987 on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the evidence adduced, a decree for divorce or judicial separation could be granted ?” 6. Heard Mr. S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was solemnised on 23.02.1966. Defendant no.1 had premarital illicit relationship with one Ramchandra Das. In the year 1970, defendant no.1 left the house of the plaintiff and stayed with her parents house. Thereafter, she developed illicit relationship with defendant nos.2 and 3. Both the courts below committed a manifest illegality and impropriety in not granting the decree of divorce. 8. The submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant is difficult to fathom. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence on record, both the courts below concurrently held that the allegations are false. The plaintiff failed to substantiate the plea that defendant no.1 was leading an adulterous life. This is essentially a finding of fact. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 9. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.