JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, dismissed the Matrimonial Title Suit No. 73 of 2004, instituted by the petitioner/appellant herein, by the impugned judgment dated 11.11.2008. Petitioner had sought dissolution of the marriage with the respondent alleging cruelty in terms of Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed for adjudication: “I. Whether the case is maintainable? II. Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action to file the suit? III. Whether respondent committed act of cruelty with the petitioner and his family members and as to whether the act of cruelty has been condoned by the petitioner? IV. Whether the respondent is taking advantage of his own wrong? V. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief as prayed for?” 3. The learned Family Court decided the issue relating to the cruelty on the part of the respondent against the petitioner on the weight of the pleadings and evidences on record. Copious evidences were led both by the petitioner and the respondent before the learned Family Court in support of their stand and have been discussed by the learned Family Court at length. 4. We may briefly discuss the case of the parties as made out before the learned Family Court based on their pleadings, but, a development, which has happened during the pendency of appeal, has indeed a very important bearing on the outcome of the present appeal. Before dealing with the material pleadings of the parties and the evidences adduced on their behalf during the trial, we consider it proper to make a reference of this important development. 5. The respondent-wife had instituted a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner/ husband and her father-in-law and mother-in-law, namely, Jai Deo Pathak and Kaushalya Devi respectively through Complaint Case No. 198 of 2007 (T.R. No. 199 of 2014). The parties, however, amicably settled their disputes and filed a joint compromise petition before the learned Court of SDJM, Ranchi on 04.08.2014, which is at Annexure-A to an affidavit dated 12.11.2014 filed by the respondent in the present appeal. The parties, however, amicably settled their disputes and filed a joint compromise petition before the learned Court of SDJM, Ranchi on 04.08.2014, which is at Annexure-A to an affidavit dated 12.11.2014 filed by the respondent in the present appeal. On the complainant’s written report, another criminal prosecution against the petitioner/ husband was initiated through Kotwali (Sukhdeo Nagar) P.S. Case No. 321 of 2007 dated 04.05.2007 for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. G.R. Case No. 1630 of 2007, Tr. No. 600 of 2014 corresponding thereto was also pending before the same Court of learned SDJM, Ranchi. It was on the basis of this joint compromise petition, filed on behalf of the informant/ wife Sandhya Kumari and the accused persons including the petitioner, finding of acquittal was recorded by the learned SDJM in both criminal cases vide judgment dated 04.08.2014 (Annexure-B and B/1 of the same counter-affidavit). The learned trial court took into account that a joint compromise petition duly signed by the complainant and the accused persons along with the petition seeking permission of the court to compound the case was filed with the signature of the complainant and the accused person. In the background thereof she has been cross-examined after framing of charge where she has supported it as being made on her own free will. The complainant/ informant examined herself as CW-1/ PW-1 and stated that misunderstanding had arisen in the mind of the complainant that her husband had illicit relationship with one Arti Madnani, but, she also stated in her evidence that she had never seen her husband with Arti Madnani. She also denied of any alleged demand of dowry on the part of the accused persons and torture on failure to pay the demanded dowry on the part of her parents. The learned court of SDJM, Ranchi proceeded to record that the matter had been amicably settled and complainant is leading happy conjugal life with her husband and there is no grievance against her husband or her in-laws. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted. This order of acquittal on the basis of a joint compromise petition filed on the part of the petitioner and the respondent-wife had a definite legal implication. Accordingly, the accused persons were acquitted. This order of acquittal on the basis of a joint compromise petition filed on the part of the petitioner and the respondent-wife had a definite legal implication. Acts of cruelty in marriage may be condoned by the spouses in the larger interest of saving the relationship of marriage itself, which is essential to maintain the social fabric of the society. Learned counsel for the appellant has however during the course of his submission conveyed that the compromise failed and parties have not been able to live together. That is the reason for him to press this appeal. Efforts for conciliation during the pendency of this appeal, even thereafter, pursuant to the order, passed by this Court on 27.02.2017 have failed. The marriage has also irretrievably broken down on account of the circumstances. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has always been willing to live with the appellant in a happy conjugal atmosphere, but, it is the husband, who has always had issues of discord. It was he, who has filed the matrimonial suit for a decree of divorce in 2004 keeping the respondent in dark, though she was living with him. The respondent has shown magnanimity in agreeing to the compromise proposed by the petitioner in a criminal case also in order to save marriage. Acts of the appellant-husband in agreeing to the compromise to lead a happy conjugal life amounts to condonation of any such alleged act of cruelty on the part of the respondent. The appellant has not made out any new grounds of cruelty after the compromise arrived at on 04.08.2014 which led to his acquittal in criminal trial in a criminal case. 7. In this background, we may usefully refer to the rival case of the parties before arriving at a final conclusion on the fate of the appeal. 8. Marriage of the parties took place on 10.03.1999 as per Hindu rites. Appellant noticed abnormal and quarrelsome behaviour of the respondent but took it lightly initially, however, her behaviour became more cruel and the situation deteriorated as a result his parents had to leave the house and live separately. At times she called him on phone informing that she had taken poison. Appellant noticed abnormal and quarrelsome behaviour of the respondent but took it lightly initially, however, her behaviour became more cruel and the situation deteriorated as a result his parents had to leave the house and live separately. At times she called him on phone informing that she had taken poison. However, when he reached there in a hurry and also got seriously injured in the process, he found her lying in bed and laughing upon him. She used to play cruel hoax upon him often. The appellant was initially employed in a private job and later on took a job in the Bank, which increased his liabilities. He used to get delayed in returning home from the office due to pressure of work, which again infuriated the respondent. She initiated several proceedings against him and his family members including one before the State Women Commission, which was dismissed as frivolous. The appellant has found that it was impossible for him to lead a happy conjugal life in such circumstances. 9. Respondent on her part stated through her written statement that a son, namely, Subham, was born out of the wedlock. Their life was pleasant, but, since the appellant took a job on a contract basis in the State Bank of India, his behaviour changed. She found him involved with one girl, namely, Arti Madnani. On being queried, the appellant used to loose cool and ill treat her. She had always been good to the appellant and his family members, but, it was the appellant, who wanted to separate because of his illicit affair with another girl. Some incidences of his acts of indulgence have also been mentioned in the written statement. She further alleged that the appellant got her pregnancy terminated as he wanted to keep her as midwife and to spend more time with his girl friend. Based on the rival pleadings, aforesaid issues were framed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has however during the course of his submission alleged that issue Nos. 3 & 4 were not framed during the course of trial and issue Nos. 2 & 4 were framed during the course of trial, but, there is no finding on these issues contrary to the principles enshrined under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Petitioner/ appellant examined eight witnesses in support of his case. 3 & 4 were not framed during the course of trial and issue Nos. 2 & 4 were framed during the course of trial, but, there is no finding on these issues contrary to the principles enshrined under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Petitioner/ appellant examined eight witnesses in support of his case. PW-1 Din Dayal Mahto is his friend; PW-2 Shiv Kumar, ex-colleague of the appellant; PW-3 Shiv Shankar Prasad Sahu, proprietor of M/s. Krishi Vihar where the appellant worked from 1998 to March 2001; PW-4 Pramod Kumar, husband of Anita Sinha, one of the lady with whom the respondent has alleged illicit relationship; PW-5 Kamakhya Mishra, brother-in-law of the appellant; PW-6 Dr. K.C. Manjhi, a Doctor of RINPAS, who had treated the appellant for depression and opined disturbed marital relationship; PW-7 Jai Deo Pathak, father of the appellant and PW-8 the petitioner himself. These witnesses have testified at length before the learned Family Court. They have by and large supported the case of the petitioner relating to ill treatment by the respondent and the fact that his parents started living separately. They have denied the existence of illicit relationship of the appellant with any other lady. PW-2, the appellant’s ex-colleague, had deposed about the nature of his official work, which made his late till 11.00-12.00 at night on frequent occasion while returning from his office. PW-3, proprietor of M/s. Krishi Vihar, had deposed that even after the petitioner/ appellant left the firm he was called upon to undertake the work of accounts, audit etc. which caused delay in returning to his home and that he had good character. PW-4, husband of Anita Sinha, had deposed about the good relationship of the appellant with his wife in the nature of brother sister relationship and they had worked together in Krishi Vihar and opened a partnership firm in the name of Universe Computer. He had also deposed about the quarrelsome behaviour of the respondent towards the appellant and his family. According to him there was misunderstanding on the part of the respondent due to his late coming to home. Repeated threatening of committing suicide by the respondent and putting the entire family of the appellant to false accusation were also stated by this witness. He denied the relationship of the appellant with Arti Madnani. According to him there was misunderstanding on the part of the respondent due to his late coming to home. Repeated threatening of committing suicide by the respondent and putting the entire family of the appellant to false accusation were also stated by this witness. He denied the relationship of the appellant with Arti Madnani. PW-5, appellant’s brother-in-law, stated about the quarrelsome behaviour of the respondent and threatening given to the entire family members of falsely implicating them in criminal case. He had also deposed about the threat of committing suicide by the respondent and the false case lodged before the State Women Commission and also before the Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. PW-6, Dr. K.C. Manjhi, a doctor of RINPAS had found the appellant suffering from depression due to family problems and disturbed marital relationship. PW-7, appellant’s father had also deposed about the cruel behaviour of the respondent. He had also deposed about the false case lodged on the part of the respondent. According to him, marriage had irretrievably broken down. PW-8, petitioner himself had deposed at great length. His testimony covers several paragraphs. He had narrated in detail as to how he had to live with his friend for a month away from his matrimonial house. He had also deposed about the cruel behaviour of the respondent and false case lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sukhdeonagar Police Station. He also deposed about the news published at the instance of the respondent to humiliate him. Joint compromise between the parties was made on 09.06.2006 i.e. Ext.12, but, the said compromise was never acted upon. He also referred to the treatment under Dr. P.G. Sarkar, who diagnosed that the depression was on account of cruel behaviour of the respondent. 12. The respondent-wife has examined five witnesses. DW-1, Arti Mishra, sister of the respondent, deposed that parents of the appellant are living in rented house. DW-2, Rekha Sahu, was the friend of the respondent. She had also deposed about the illicit relationship with Arti Madnani. She had seen appellant, respondent and her son and sometime sister of the respondent also, whenever she visited their house. DW-3, Ramchandra Sharma, neighbour of the appellant, who stated that the appellant had good image in the locality; however, there was quarrel between the parties. He was treated to be a hearsay witness. She had seen appellant, respondent and her son and sometime sister of the respondent also, whenever she visited their house. DW-3, Ramchandra Sharma, neighbour of the appellant, who stated that the appellant had good image in the locality; however, there was quarrel between the parties. He was treated to be a hearsay witness. DW-4, Chaturbhuj Mishra is the uncle (phufa) of the respondent, who also deposed in her support though he was not an eye witness. DW-5 is respondent herself, who supported her case and stated that her mother-in-law was also aware of the whereabouts of one Anita Sinha. The appellant used to get intimated. Later on, she was married with one Pramod Kumar Mahto and she also alleged about the love affair of her husband with Arti Madnani. 13. The learned Family Court discussed in detail the evidences of the parties and in answer to issue No. 3 & 4 relating to cruelty in marriage on the part of the respondent and whether the respondent was taking advantage of her own wrong came to a finding that though there were dispute between the parties but it was not of a serious nature as they were leading usual life establishing their relationship as husband and wife. Learned court found that they were visiting cinema, restaurant etc. as happy spouses, which showed that cruelty, if any, by the respondent had been condoned by the petitioner. The learned court was also of the opinion that these allegations and the counter-allegations were in the nature of normal wear and tear in marriage. Accordingly, the issue was answered against the petitioner. Rest other issue Nos. 1, 2 & 5 were also answered against the petitioner in the light of the findings recorded on issue Nos. 3 & 4. 14. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and taken into account the relevant material evidence relied upon by them in support of their cases. We have also taken note of the development, which has happened during the pendency of the appeal as noted above. Marriage between the parties dates back to 1999, matrimonial suit for divorce was instituted in the year 2004 itself, before which a son had already been born out of the wedlock. There are allegations and counter-allegations on the point of cruelty, which the learned Family Court had reason to disbelieve. Marriage between the parties dates back to 1999, matrimonial suit for divorce was instituted in the year 2004 itself, before which a son had already been born out of the wedlock. There are allegations and counter-allegations on the point of cruelty, which the learned Family Court had reason to disbelieve. We may have proceeded to analyze the material evidence on record relating to the acts of cruelty alleged against the respondent in greater detail, however, we cannot ignore the conscious act that has taken place between the parties after pronouncement of the impugned judgment on 11.11.2008. We have taken note of the finding rendered by the learned court of SDJM, Ranchi, based upon joint compromise petition filed by the parties, which is to the effect that the matter has been amicably settled. The learned court has recorded that complainant is leading happy conjugal life with her husband and she has no grievance either against her husband or against her in-laws. This conscious act of compromise between the parties, by which the parties agreed to live together happily, legally implied that acts of such cruelty earlier alleged by the petitioner against the respondent stood condoned. [See : (1999) 7 SCC 311 , R. Balasubramanian Versus Vijayalakshmi Balasubramanian (Smt.)]. 15. The compromise may have failed and the parties may not be living together as asserted by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, if in the light of the compromise arrived at between them, the material pleadings and the allegations relating to cruelty in marriage cannot be gone into any more as all these acts impliedly stood condoned on the part of the appellant. No new grounds of cruelty have been made out or brought on record through further evidence in the matter to press the plea of dissolution of marriage in the present appeal. Thus, taken in totality, we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the learned Family Court and interfere in the present appeal. 16. This appeal stands dismissed. Decree accordingly.