JUDGMENT : Kailash Prasad Deo, J. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey assisted by Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay and learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Abdul Allam, Senior Counsel assisted by Fahad Allam. 2. The instant first appeal has been preferred by the wife/respondent/appellant herein against the judgment dated 21.02.2017 and decree dated 24.03.2017 passed in Original (MTS) No. 177 of 2015 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereby, the learned Family court has partly allowed the suit and instead of granting decree of divorce has granted decree of judicial seperation under Section 10 read with Section 13(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant (wife) has preferred this appeal. It is relevant to state here that the Original Suit (MTS) No. 177 of 2015 was decided by the Family Court, Ranchi, though the case was initially filed on 10.01.2013 before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.). But the same has been transferred vide order dated 15.01.2015 passed in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1398 of 2013. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Family Court has passed the order of judicial separation, though the same was not prayed by the husband/petitioner/respondent (herein) before the learned Family Court. Apart from this, the learned Family Court has not taken judicial notice of the fact that the appellant Nitu Singh and her child had been thrown out of house in March, 2011. Husband has never preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right before seeking divorce and there was consistent demand of Rs. 50,00,000/-from the father of wife/respondent/appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned Family court has not granted decree of divorce, but unnecessarily passed the judgment and decree of judicial separation. The wife has filed a criminal case vide Complaint Case No. 729/2013 against the husband/respondent under Sections 498A/323 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending for evidence before the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, as such the impugned judgment may be set aside. 5. The wife has filed a criminal case vide Complaint Case No. 729/2013 against the husband/respondent under Sections 498A/323 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending for evidence before the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, as such the impugned judgment may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that the marriage was solemnized between the parties as per Hindu rites and rituals on 29.01.2007 and they have been blessed with a child, but since very beginning, the appellant was not interested in happy conjugal life. She was lady of independent views interested in leading luxurious life. She did not know to cook food and her behaviour with the husband and other family members had been extremely cruel and was not interested in discharging her marital obligations. The wife in absence of husband without intimating him used to go to her parental house and even on petty matters, she quarrelled and harassed the husband. The wife had pressurized the husband to transfer the entire properties in favour of her and her child. The wife had stated that she is not happy with the marriage and she want to lead life with her own choice. Since marriage i.e. from January, 2007 till March, 2011, she had spent only six months period with husband and in absence of husband, she fled away along with child and properties. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has further submitted that even at the Mediation Centre before the Hon’ble Supreme Court a paper was prepared regarding restitution of conjugal right, but on the last date of Mediation the wife/respondent/appellant did not attend the Mediation Centre. Thereafter, the Mediator could not finalize the terms and conditions between the parties, which goes to show that the wife is hardly interested for conjugal life amicably. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has further submitted that between the period from 2007 to 2011, wife has hardly lived for six months in marital status and they are living separately since 2011. As such, seeing the conduct of the parties, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has granted judicial Separation, which does not require any interference by this Court as subsequent to that divorce case is pending before the Family Court, Ranchi which is at final stage. 8. As such, seeing the conduct of the parties, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has granted judicial Separation, which does not require any interference by this Court as subsequent to that divorce case is pending before the Family Court, Ranchi which is at final stage. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Family Court has framed altogether seven issues:- I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? IV. Whether the petitioner has committed atrocities with respondent due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand? V. Whether the respondent had deserted the petitioner and deprived him from cohabitation? VI. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of divorce from the respondent? VII. To what relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled for? 9. The applicant/husband/respondent has examined altogether three witnesses: P.W.-1 is Vishwanath Prasad Singh, father of the husband. P.W.-2 is Ravi Shankar, the husband himself. P.W.-3 is Krishna Kumar Singh is Uncle of the husband. The applicant has also adduced petition dated 09.01.2013 on record and thus admitted under Section 14 of the Family Court’s Act for ends of justice as Exhibit-1. 10. The appellant-wife has also examined two witnesses i.e. Dr. Nitu Singh herself as R.W.-1 and her father Awadesh Singh as R.W.-2. 11. Learned Family Court took up Issue Nos. 3, 4 & 5 jointly regarding cruelty and desertion against each other. P.W.-2, the respondent-husband Ravi Shankar, during his evidence has stated that the wife has never discharged her matrimonial duties. She often quarrelled on petty matters and harassed the husband and without intimating him, she used to go to her matrimonial house and put pressure upon the husband to transfer his entire properties in her name and in the name of her child and used to give threatening of committing suicide. This evidence has also been supported by father of the husband, who has been examined as P.W.-1. Vishwanath Prasad Singh (P.W.-1) in his evidence has stated that respondent Dr. Nitu Singh used to pressurize the husband Dr. Ravi Shankar to sell the house situated at Noida and sent the parents to native village – Chapra and shift with her at Ranchi and since March, 2011, Dr. Nitu Singh is residing with her father. Vishwanath Prasad Singh (P.W.-1) in his evidence has stated that respondent Dr. Nitu Singh used to pressurize the husband Dr. Ravi Shankar to sell the house situated at Noida and sent the parents to native village – Chapra and shift with her at Ranchi and since March, 2011, Dr. Nitu Singh is residing with her father. This witness has further stated that he went to her maike with entire belongings, but she did not turn up, even on sincere effort made on behalf of the husband, but they did not lodge any complaint against her as there is no criminal act. The daughter is living with her mother and entire expenses are meted out by her. P.W.-1, father of the husband has stated that he met his grand daughter twice, first time at house of the wife/respondent/appellant at Ranchi and second time at Ranchi Airport, but his son met his daughter first time at Delhi in Mediation Centre of Supreme Court and second time at Ranchi Airport. Though, marriage was solemnized in the month of January, 2007 their relationship became strained since, May, 2007, when respondent insisted and went to her father’s house at Ranchi and at that time, she was carrying pregnancy of three months. The husband has deep concern and care for safety of mother and child in the womb. This witness and his wife several times offered Dr. Nitu Singh on telephone to come back, so that custom of second marriage could be performed, but no reaction came from her side. She came herself to Delhi in the year 2009 and stayed for four months only and went back to Ranchi with daughter without intimating them. Again she came back to Delhi in September-October, 2010 and stayed upto March, 2011. At that time the relationship of wife and husband was strained and since then she is living in Ranchi. Dr. Nitu Singh was threatening to call police and once police came also. This witness being father of the husband tried to convince her and call her father several times on telephone, but no steps was taken by her or her father to resolve the dispute. Such threatening and calling police in the matter of matrimonial dispute by the wife is not conducive for maintaining cordial relation with the husband rather torturous in nature. Such threatening and calling police in the matter of matrimonial dispute by the wife is not conducive for maintaining cordial relation with the husband rather torturous in nature. They also met at Haridwar, but lived separately and the appellant-wife did not appear before the Mediation Centre of Supreme Court on the last occasion so as to finalize the terms of the mediation. This shows that the wife has no inclination to restore the matrimonial relationship. P.W.-2 the respondent husband Dr. Ravi Shankar has adduced evidence stating therein that wife used to pressurize to sell or transfer all properties situated at Greater Noida and sent back his parents to native place at Chapra and move to Ranchi. She went to Ranchi in April, 2008 without consent and intimation to the husband and family members. Even on persuasion, she did not came back, rather threatened to meet her demand as per her wishes. This witness got information in October, 2010 that wife is coming alongwith daughter after 15 months to Greater Noida. They celebrated birthday together went to visit old school at Pilani, but as usual she abused him and his parents. This witness has stated that since wife and child are living separately from him and during intervening period, he has not given any expenses, but he gave about 1.5 lakhs during Mediation arrived in the Supreme Court, but ultimately that failed. The wife used to threaten him to jeopardize his career while he was studying for Neuro Surgery Course. She informed his Head of the Department in order to implicate him and when he called her parents to settle the matter they came and started making false allegation before H.O.D. and put pressure upon him to comply with wishes. P.W.-3 Uncle of the husband has also supported the version of the respondent husband that wife was not interested, rather she went back to Ranchi on several occasions from Noida. Dr. Nitu Singh who is examined as R.W.-1 has submitted that during marriage in accordance with demand of husband and his family members, her parents gave ornaments on occasion of Cheka, Ring Ceremony and Tilak. Her Marriage was solemnized at Matrimonial house at Giridih on 29.01.2007 and was taken to Greater Noida where she lived about 1½ months and went to her college Kishananganj for internship alone, as her husband refused to accompany her. Her Marriage was solemnized at Matrimonial house at Giridih on 29.01.2007 and was taken to Greater Noida where she lived about 1½ months and went to her college Kishananganj for internship alone, as her husband refused to accompany her. After completion of her internship, she went back to her husband's place at Greater Noida. Her mother-in-law took her entire ornaments and costly wearings and did not return till today. They satired her for coming with lesser dowry than expected. Husband and his family members started putting pressure to bring Rs. 50,00,000/-for admission in P.G. Course and thereby tortured her. When she became pregnant, even then the family members continued torturing her. Her father examined as R.W.-2 has categorically stated that he has not taken any action. He came to know from his daughter about snatching of ornaments, but did not lodge any complaint. This witness has categorically stated that demand was started after four years of marriage. His daughter lived with her husband for 7-8 months between 2007 to 2013. This witness has further admitted that husband has filed Divorce Case first then his daughter out of vengeance filed case of torture in connection with dowry. 12. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Family court considered the evidence of both sides and came to a finding that husband's evidence suffers from least infirmity to prove cruelty whereas respondent/wife/appellant evidence are self-contradictory and mutually contradictory to each other on material particulars. 13. The mediation also took place at Supreme Court where the conduct of the appellant-wife shows that she was hardly interested to proceed for conjugal life. The parties are living separately since March, 2011 and the divorce petition was filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) by the husband on 10.01.2013. On the basis of order passed by the Apex Court after taking recourse of mediation, the matter was transferred to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in terms of order dated 15.01.2015 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1398/2013. Thus, the Family court after taking entire gamut of fact found it proper not to grant decree of divorce, but considering their matrimonial status and difference towards restoring conjugal life, granted judicial separation which has been assailed before this Court. 14. Thus, the Family court after taking entire gamut of fact found it proper not to grant decree of divorce, but considering their matrimonial status and difference towards restoring conjugal life, granted judicial separation which has been assailed before this Court. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on the basis of impugned judgment and perusal of the materials available on record, the undisputed facts are like this:- Ring Ceremony took place at Hotel at Noida on 23.05.2006. (ii) Marriage was solemnized on 29.01.2007 at Giridih as per Hindu rituals and customs. (iii) The wife/respondent/appellant went to her in-laws place with husband/petitioner/respondent at Greater Noida, where she lived for 1½ months and thereafter went to Kishanganj for her internship alone. After completion of the internship, she came to her husband’s place at Noida and during stay, she became pregnant and went to her father’s place at Ranchi carrying pregnancy of three months, where she was blessed with a girl child. The wife has alleged that there was demand of Rs. 50,00,000/-for which she was tortured, but this fact has been contradicted by her father, who has stated that demand of dowry was made after four years. (iv) In July, 2009, the wife/respondent/appellant along with minor child went to Delhi and stayed for four months, but went back to Ranchi with daughter without informing anybody and after 15 months again came to Delhi and lived there from October, 2010 to January, 2011. (v) Mediation Proceeding took place before Mediation Centre of Supreme Court for restitution of conjugal life, but on the final date of counselling, wife/respondent/appellant did not appear and thus, the terms of the compromise could not be finalized. (vi) Admittedly from March, 2011, none of the parties reside together. The husband/applicant/respondent Dr. Ravi Shankar filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 10.01.2013 before the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.), which was subsequently transferred to court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in terms of order dated 15.01.2015 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1398 of 2013. (vii) The learned Family court after taking note of the entire materials on record and considering that the evidence of both the sides are suffering from infirmity, but husband’s evidence suffer from least infirmity refused to grant divorce. (vii) The learned Family court after taking note of the entire materials on record and considering that the evidence of both the sides are suffering from infirmity, but husband’s evidence suffer from least infirmity refused to grant divorce. It observed that the wife/respondent/appellant's evidence seemed to be self-contradictory and contradictory to the evidence of her father and took note of her tendency to live separately since March, 2011 as she had not taken interest before the Mediation Centre at Supreme Court and she did not appear on the last date of mediation. (viii) The evidence of R.W.-2 father of the wife shows that after filing of the divorce petition by the husband, the wife has filed a case of torture in connection with dowry out of vengeance. (ix) The learned Family Court, therefore, appears to have rightly taken view of granting judicial separation between the parties, so as to maintain social harmony. 15. After hearing both the parties, looking into the material available on record and also discussed by the learned Family Court in detail, it appears that there is a criminal case pending between the parties and subsequent divorce case filed before the Family Court, Ranchi is at the final stage, which clearly establishes that both parties are in litigating terms, living separately since March, 2011 and are not interested in restoring conjugal life. Thus, interference in the judgment of Judicial Separation is not warranted. The impugned judgment and decree does not require any interference as there is no illegality or irregularity in the same. 16. Accordingly, this first appeal is dismissed.