JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for appellant and Sri B.N. Rai, Advocate for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 filed by defendant-appellant has arisen from judgment and decree dated 16.12.2009 passed by Sri Pawan Kumar Jain, Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Matrimonial Suit No. 1144 of 2006 filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”), whereby it has passed decree of divorce between parties and dissolved marriage from the date of judgment. The grounds on which decree has been passed is cruelty towards husband and desertion. 3. Only two grounds have been pressed by learned counsel for appellant. Firstly, that evidence of appellant was not considered; and secondly, that there was no evidence of cruelty or desertion. 4. Respondent-husband instituted Matrimonial Suit No. 1144 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. Plaint case set up by him is that, plaintiff, when two years old, lost his eye sight and is completely blind since then. However, he did not loose courage and got education, passed out Graduation and thereafter completed course of Telephone Operator from Indore (Madhya Pradesh). He got appointment in the office of District Industries, Kanpur in handicapped quota. Parents of plaintiff-husband searched for a girl who may be life time partner of of plaintiff-husband and in this process parents of appellant-wife contacted plaintiff’s parents and offered matrimonial relation with their daughter stating that their financial condition is very bad and, therefore, they would not be able to spent any money in the marriage and the entire expenses had to be borne by plaintiff’s family. Plaintiff’s parents and relatives talked with appellant who promised to keep plaintiff and his family happy. Ultimately marriage was solemnized in a simple function on 27.6.2003 at Bhagwati Guest House, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. Expenses in the marriage, whatsoever were incurred by family members of plaintiff. 5. After marriage plaintiff finds behaviour of appellant-wife very cruel. She stayed only for seven days with husband and in-laws. In this short time she had shown a behaviour of extreme cruelty with entire family. She did not discharge any function of wife and misbehaved with plaintiff calling him blind man, repeatedly, in front of relatives and family members of plaintiff. After marriage plaintiff finds behaviour of appellant-wife very cruel. She stayed only for seven days with husband and in-laws. In this short time she had shown a behaviour of extreme cruelty with entire family. She did not discharge any function of wife and misbehaved with plaintiff calling him blind man, repeatedly, in front of relatives and family members of plaintiff. Immediately after marriage a ladies music programme was organized at plaintiff’s house but in the evening appellant-wife said that she is not well and went to her room and despite lot of persuasion by plaintiff’s mother did not come to participate in the function. Instead she abused and misbehaved with plaintiff’s mother. When other family members enquired for the reason, she said that marriage was solemnized against her wishes and she has been married to a blind man. She also threatened that in case she is not allowed to live as per her own wishes, she would involve entire family in a case of dowry and may also commit suicide. Appellant-wife also did not allow plaintiff-husband to have relationship of husband-wife and misbehaved with him causing disturbance in the entire family. She never cooked food. She used to call food from hotels. Plaintiff repeatedly said that he is not financially so sound that everyday he can get food from hotel or restaurant, whereupon appellant used to cause hue and cry causing disturbance and mental torture to plaintiff and entire family. Whatever gifts were given by plaintiff’s relatives etc. in marriage, same were kept by appellant in her possession and silently she sent entire costly gift items to her parents home through her brothers who used to visit plaintiff’s house. After leaving plaintiff’s house after seven days, whenever she was requested to come back, she always refused to do so. However, with intervention of some family members she came back on 2.10.2003 and thereafter live a very discreet life. Again she left the house of plaintiff on 27.10.2003 and did not come back. 6. Suit was contested by appellant by filing written statement denying all allegations. She has said that on demand of plaintiff’s parents Rs. 2 lacs dowry were paid by parents of appellant but despite that plaintiff’s family members were not satisfied. Plaintiff always maintained a negative view against family members of appellant. All allegations levelled against appellant were denied. 6. Suit was contested by appellant by filing written statement denying all allegations. She has said that on demand of plaintiff’s parents Rs. 2 lacs dowry were paid by parents of appellant but despite that plaintiff’s family members were not satisfied. Plaintiff always maintained a negative view against family members of appellant. All allegations levelled against appellant were denied. In the additional pleas appellant said that her in-laws demanded Rs. 50,000/- cash, Almirah, Double bed and Fridge and threatened that without bringing the same she would not be able to live peacefully in in-laws house. When appellant’s brother visited for her Vidai, after few days, in-laws of appellant demanded for dowry and also abused appellant’s brother. She was beaten by parents of husband, his elder brothers and their wives on 23.7.2006, in the evening, and was thrown out of the house after snatching ornaments, she was wearing. They beat her badly. She came to her parents’ house who lodged report and she was also taken to Ursala Hospital, Kanpur Nagar for her treatment. 7. Trial Court formulated following issues: 1- D;k foif{k;ksa us fiVh'kuj ds lkFk Øwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj fd;k] tSlk fd fiVh'ku esa dgk x;k gS\ ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\ 2- D;k foif{k;ksa us fiVh'kuj dk fnukad 27-10-2003 ls ifjR;kx dj j[kk gS] tSlk fd fiVh'ku esa dgk x;k gS\ 3- vuqrks"k\ 1. Whether the respondents have subjected the petitioner to cruelty, as mentioned in the petition? If so, its effect? 2. Whether the respondents have deserted the petitioner since 27.10.2003, as mentioned in the petition? 3. Relief?” (English translation by Court) 8. In support of plaint case plaintiff-husband himself deposed as PW-1, his father as PW-2 and one Babu Lal Shukla as PW-3, while appellant herself deposed as DW-1 and his brother, Satish Pandey as DW-2. Plaintiff filed seven documents while appellant did not file any documentary evidence. Plaintiff’s documentary evidence included report lodged on 14.1.2007 by appellant in Police Station Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC; copy of final report submitted by police and orders passed by Court. He also filed copy of complaint sent to Additional District Magistrate (City) on 3.7.2004 alongwith affidavit and his father’s letters sent to Senior Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on 1.11.2003. He also filed copy of complaint sent to Additional District Magistrate (City) on 3.7.2004 alongwith affidavit and his father’s letters sent to Senior Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on 1.11.2003. He also filed copy of receipts showing purchase of jewelry by plaintiff-husband and receipts of Bhagwati Guest House to show that it was booked by plaintiff and expenses were also paid by him. 9. Trial Court examined Issue-1 and noted that husband became blind at early stage of childhood. Appellant-wife lost her father before marriage. She had two younger brothers who were studying and marriage expenses were supposed to be borne by her brother, Satish, DW-2. She admitted in her early deposition that her brother, except agriculture, had no other source of income. At the time of marriage her brother’s income was around Rs. 1200/- per month. She had also admitted that her family consisted of three brothers and two sisters. The entire responsibility was upon Satish, DW-2, brother of appellant-wife. From these facts Trial Court recorded a finding that financial condition of appellant’s family was penurious and documents also supports that expenses incurred in marriage were borne by husband and his family members. Guest house got booked by husband’s father. Jewelry was purchased by him and all these facts were proved by documentary evidence, i.e., receipts etc. placed before Court below by husband. Appellant though levelled allegations of dowry but could not prove the same at all. On the contrary her brother, DW-2, Satish Pandey, admitted in cross-examination that he was not under any pressure of expenses to be incurred in marriage of appellant. He also admitted that furniture, like double bed, Almirah, Fridge etc. nothing was given by him in marriage. From all these facts, Trial Court had recorded a finding that allegations of demand of dowry and pleading that Rs. 2 lacs were paid in dowry at the time of marriage were all bogus and have no foundation at all. Further, appellant’s conduct for lodging a criminal case under Dowry Prohibition Act and various provisions of Indian Penal Code on 14.1.2007 shows false implication of husband and family members in a criminal case by wife and it amounts to a clear evidence of torture and cruelty on the part of appellant towards husband and his family members. Further, appellant’s conduct for lodging a criminal case under Dowry Prohibition Act and various provisions of Indian Penal Code on 14.1.2007 shows false implication of husband and family members in a criminal case by wife and it amounts to a clear evidence of torture and cruelty on the part of appellant towards husband and his family members. In the entirety of facts, Issue-1 was answered in favour of husband holding that he has proved that wife committed cruelty and cruel behabiour with husband and his family members. Issue-2 was also answered in favour of husband holding that wife has left house of husband on 27.10.2003 without any valid reason and has deserted him. 10. In view of above, Trial Court decreed suit and passed a decree of divorce and dissolved marriage solemnized between parties on 27.6.2003. 11. Learned counsel for appellant has assailed aforesaid judgments only on two grounds. Firstly, that evidence of appellant was not considered and secondly, that there is no evidence of cruelty or desertion. 12. On the contrary, learned counsel for plaintiff-husband has supported judgment on the basis of findings recorded therein and relevant evidence placed before Court below. 13. Two points for determination have arisen in this appeal: (I) Whether, Trial Court has not considered any evidence tendered by appellant? (II) Whether, finding of cruelty and desertion recorded by Trial Court is based on no evidence? 14. Since both the aforesaid points are inter-related, we find it appropriate to consider the same together. 15. Learned counsel for appellant did not dispute that except her oral evidence wife as DW-1 and her brother’s as DW-2, no other oral evidence was tendered by appellant. It is also not disputed that no documentary evidence was tendered by appellant. Copy of affidavit of appellant tendering oral evidence by way of affidavit has been made part of paper book alongwith cross-examination and therefrom we find that in the affidavit appellant alleged that her husband wanted to solemnize another marriage but when questioned, learned counsel for appellant could not dispute that there was no such pleading in written statement, either, while replying various paragraphs of plaint or in additional pleas. In the cross-examination she admitted that her brother’s source of income is only agriculture but how much land he own, she expressed her ignorance. In the cross-examination she admitted that her brother’s source of income is only agriculture but how much land he own, she expressed her ignorance. She also pleaded ignorance about gifts etc., if any, given by her brother or any other family members in the marriage and clearly said that she is not aware of any such thing. She said that with regard to dowry of Rs. 2 lacs alleged in para 3 of written statement, her brother can only tell and she is not aware of any such thing. We repeatedly asked from learned counsel for appellant as to which evidence of appellant has not been examined by Court below but he could give no reply on this aspect and only argued vaguely that her evidence was not examined. With regard to documentary evidence produced by husband showing that marriage expenses were incurred by husband and his family members and from very beginning they made complaint to various authorities regarding behaviour of wife, he could give no reply thereto and also during course of argument could not dispute that no evidence otherwise was led by appellant to disprove aforesaid documentary evidence of plaintiff. 16. In these facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that Trial Court has recorded findings on the basis of evidence available before it and learned counsel for appellant, except bare argument, could not substantiate the same by referring to any document on record. Hence, we answer both the aforesaid questions against appellant. 17. No other point has been argued. 18. Appeal lacks merit. Dismissed. 19. However, parties shall bear their own costs.