JUDGMENT : (Kuldeep Mathur, J.) 1. The present Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant- wife- Neetu against the judgment and decree dated 16 th December 2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sirohi in Civil Misc. Case No.82/2019 whereby the petition preferred by the respondent no.1- husband- Vinod Kumar under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) for dissolution of marriage was allowed and a decree of divorce between the parties was passed. 2. Succinctly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar filed a divorce petition before the learned Family Court, Sirohi, alleging inter alia that the marriage of the appellant- wife and the respondent no.1 was solemnized on 02 nd December 2009 at Village Malwada, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore and two sons namely Sahil and Kunal were born out of their wedlock. Upto two years of their marriage, they continued their conjugal relations peacefully however, in the month of November/ December of 2011, the respondent no.1 discovered the extra- marital affair of his wife- Neetu through her phone and her personal diary. For the sake of their marriage, upon being requested by the family members of Neetu and for the welfare of his infant son Sahil, he forgave the appellant- wife and came with her to live with his parents at Kalandri. Thereafter, in the year 2018, Govind (A.W.2)- brother of respondent no.1 saw the appellant- Neetu in a compromising position with one Praveen Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar (respondent no.2) and disclosed the incident to his family, whereupon the appellant- Neetu threatened her in-laws of dire consequences if they would interrupt her illicit relations. 3. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the appellant- Neetu and after suffering mental cruelty for so long, the respondent no.1 went to his in-laws for advice but to his utter dismay, instead of reprimanding their daughter- Neetu of her miscreant and unfaithful behavior, they threatened the respondent no.1 of lodging a false case against him and ruining his life. Thereafter, the appellant- Neetu along with her son- Kunal moved to live with her parents on 11 th July 2018, since when the appellant- Neetu and her husband- respondent no.1 started living separately. Thereafter, the appellant- Neetu along with her son- Kunal moved to live with her parents on 11 th July 2018, since when the appellant- Neetu and her husband- respondent no.1 started living separately. It was further averred that the appellant- Neetu threatened the respondent no.1 that she would go and start living with respondent no.2 who being a divorcee was ready and willing to accept her. Thus, being aggrieved by the cruelty and adultery committed by his wife- Neetu, respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar prayed for a decree of divorce to be granted in his favor. 4. Denying the allegations levelled in the petition preferred by respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar, the appellant- Neetu filed a reply wherein she stated that she had no prior acquaintance with respondent no.2, who is the divorced cousin of respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 had falsely lodged a case against her in order to defame her mainly because he had prior animosity with respondent no.2 and they often had matrimonial discords as the respondent no.1 was unable to maintain her and her children. He used to mistrust her and hurl imputations upon her character whenever she used to talk on phone with her family. It was further alleged that her in-laws used to mistreat her, beat her, behave cruelly with her and also hurled abuses to her on numerous occasions on account of not bringing enough dowry articles. Appellant- Neetu in her reply, thus alleged that the respondent no.1 with an intention to marry someone else, ousted her and her son Kunal out of her matrimonial home and thus implored the Family Court to dismiss the divorce petition preferred by her husband- Vinod Kumar. 5. The learned Family Court after considering the averments made in the petition on behalf of the respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar and the reply filed on behalf of the appellant- Neetu and after hearing the preliminary arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at Bar, proceeded to frame the following questions of fact/ issues to be determined during the course of trial:- English Translation: “1) Whether the respondent inflicted cruelty in various forms against the petitioner, as stated in the application? 2) Has the respondent lived in adultery? 3) Is the petitioner entitled to obtain a decree of divorce?...” 6. 2) Has the respondent lived in adultery? 3) Is the petitioner entitled to obtain a decree of divorce?...” 6. During the course of trial, three witnesses i.e. A.W.1 being Vinod Kumar himself; A.W.2 and A.W.3 being Govind Kumar and Genaram respectively; were examined by the respondent no.1 and four documents were exhibited in support of his case. The appellant- Neetu got herself examined as N.A.W.1 in support of her case. 7. After examining the materials available on record, the learned Family Court proceeded to decide all the issues against appellant- wife Neetu and passed a decree of divorce in favor of respondent no.1- husband Vinod Kumar, which is under challenge in the present Appeal before this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the entire record including the testimonies of the witnesses before the learned Family Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant- wife vehemently contended that the learned Family Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its entirety and thus, committed grave errors in law and of facts while passing the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree in a cursory manner, inasmuch as, it failed to appreciate the averments made in the petition itself in their truest sense which are clearly suggestive of the fact that respondent no.1 and his family members forcefully ousted the appellant- Neetu from her matrimonial home. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent no.1 along with his close relatives has concocted a false story so as to put imputations upon the character of appellant- Neetu and remarry. 10. Learned counsel also contended that the learned Court below has misconstrued the concept of cruelty while deciding the issue no.1 against the appellant- wife as allegedly, the record of the case speaks volumes of the cruelty being inflicted by the respondent no.1- husband and his family members upon the appellant- wife by hurling abuses towards her and beating her for dowry demand and by levelling false accusations of she having illicit relations with the others to prove that she is a person of immoral character. It was submitted that no documentary evidence worth a mention has been produced by the respondent- husband to prove any of the allegations of cruelty and adultery levelled against the appellant- wife and the learned Court below has only relied upon the testimonies of Govind Kumar (A.W.2) and Genaram (A.W.3), who being brothers of the respondent no.1 are interested witnesses of the case. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the issue no. 3 has been decided in favor of respondent no.1 sans reasoning. In support of his contentions and arguments, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “Ballabha Das v. Sushila Bai” , [ AIR 1988 SC 2089 .] 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1- husband has vehemently contended that the relations between the appellant- Neetu and respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar are irreconcilable as soon after receiving a notice of the divorce petition filed by the respondent no.1- husband, she lodged an FIR no. 166/2019 dated 02 nd August 2019 against the respondent no.1- husband and his family members as a counterblast for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406 and 506 of IPC with the sole intention to harass him, falsely implicate him in a criminal case and cause mental torture to him. It was submitted that in the aforesaid case as well, the learned Judicial Magistrate Raniwara, District Jalore has acquitted respondent no.1- Vinod Kumar and his mother of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323/34 of IPC by finding no force in the allegations levelled by the appellant- wife. 11.1. Learned counsel thus submitted that the judgment and decree dated 16th December 2023 have been passed by the learned Family Court after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances and upon a due appreciation of all the evidence brought forth by the parties and thus prayed that the present Appeal be dismissed as such. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of “Smt. Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni”, [[2023] 14 SCR 871.] 12. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of “Smt. Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni”, [[2023] 14 SCR 871.] 12. Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the marriage between the parties which was solemnized on 02 nd December 2009 at Village Malwada, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore is not in dispute and, that, two children namely Sahil and Kunal were born out of their wedlock. This Court also finds that the parties have been living separately since 11 th July 2018 and the divorce petition was filed by respondent no.1 Vinod Kumar on 18 th July 2019. This Court also finds that both the parties have levelled allegations of cruelty against each other and specific allegation of adultery/ extra-marital affair has been levelled by the respondent no.1- husband against the appellant- wife on two occasions with respondent no.2- once in the year 2011 and the second instance in the year 2018. Thereafter, a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 came to be filed on behalf of the respondent no.1- husband before the learned Family Court, Sirohi. The learned Family Court below, after hearing both the counsel for the parties and after due consideration of evidence, framed the aforementioned three issues in the matter. 13. The learned Family Court while deciding the issues no.1 and 2 in favour of the respondent no.1- has recorded a finding that the appellant- wife had deserted her husband and inflicted mental cruelty upon him. So as to record a finding of material contradictions in her testimony, the learned Family Court has relied upon the statements of the appellant- Neetu, recorded during the course of trial in the matter pertaining to case No. 53/2020 (FIR No. 0166/2019- dowry demand case), before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Raniwara, and has held that she had stated that she was not acquainted with Praveen Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar s/o Manaram, who lived in front of their house, and that her husband had asked her not to engage in phone calls with him, which made it evident that the appellant- Neetu had given self- contradictory statements and thus, the same made her testimony unreliable. It was further recorded that since the appellant had lodged a false case against the respondent husband for demand of dowry and since she was living separately from her husband without just and reasonable cause, she on account of desertion as well as by neglecting her matrimonial duties had caused mental cruelty upon the respondent no.1- husband. The relevant portion of the reasoning as given by the learned Family Court, Sirohi in the impugned judgment dated 16 th December 2023 while deciding the issues no. 1, 2 and 3 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- English Translation:- “13- In this case, important witness A.W. 1 applicant Vinod Kumar himself has appeared on behalf of the applicant. This witness in his main examination and affidavit has repeated the facts mentioned in his petition. The applicant has mainly tried to tell in his petition and main examination affidavit that after her marriage, the non-applicant had established physical relations/ intercourse with a man other than the applicant, Praveen Kumar alias Dinesh Kumar son of Manaram Harijan, resident of Kalandri, and lived in adultery and also behaved cruelly with the applicant and the applicant's family. In his cross-examination, this witness has told that the non- applicant had shifted from Udaipur to Kalandri in the year 2012. The applicant did not used to doubt, rather used to ask the non-applicant about whom she talked to, and to let him talk to that person, but the non-applicant did not give her mobile to the applicant, he had to take it from her with great difficulty. The character of the non-applicant is not good and the non-applicant has physical relations with Dinesh Kumar, the son of the applicant's uncle, therefore the applicant is not ready to live with the non-applicant, nor does he want to take the non-applicant with him. When the non-applicant used to talk to Dinesh Kumar, the applicant's mother used to interrupt, then the non-applicant used to quarrel with her and used to say that I will ruin the life of your grandson and your son. The witness has also told that ever since the illegal relationship between Dinesh alias Praveen and the non- applicant came to surface, since then, the applicant and Dinesh Kumar are not in touch, that is, since July 2018 and the person with whom the non-applicant used to talk is Dinesh alias Praveen Kumar only. The witness has also told that ever since the illegal relationship between Dinesh alias Praveen and the non- applicant came to surface, since then, the applicant and Dinesh Kumar are not in touch, that is, since July 2018 and the person with whom the non-applicant used to talk is Dinesh alias Praveen Kumar only. In the cross-examination, this witness has also accepted that the non-applicant had lodged the First Information Report against the applicant which was lodged after one year. Exhibit-2 in the documentary evidence is the First Information Report lodged by the non-applicant against the applicant in Police Station Raniwada. The witness rejected the suggestions that the applicant lives in Udaipur, the applicant may have only wrongly suspected the non- applicant and there is no connection between Dinesh and the non-applicant and the applicant is making false allegations. 14- In support of the statements of the applicant in this case, witness Govind Kumar A.W. 02, witness Genaram A.W. 03 have unanimously described the character of the non- applicant as bad and have stated that the illicit relationship between non-applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2 was true and they had seen it. Witness Govind Kumar A.W. 02 has stated in his statement: "It is wrong to say that the incident which I have described in paragraph No. 8 of the affidavit, I have not seen it with my own eyes." "At the time of the incident mentioned in paragraph No. 8 of the affidavit in, no one was there. He himself said that it is an empty lane, there are houses of Jain- Baniya’s in the lane, but they all live outside." And witness Genaram A.W. 03 in his statement has also stated that he saw the incident while going to Jain Bhojanshala to get tiffin during the day and also that he saw the non-applicant Neetu and non-applicant number two Praveen sitting on Praveen's tractor. 15- In this case, important witness N.A.W. 01 Neetu Devi appeared on behalf of the non-applicant. This witness has also presented her affidavit of chief examination repeating the facts of the reply to the application submitted by her. 15- In this case, important witness N.A.W. 01 Neetu Devi appeared on behalf of the non-applicant. This witness has also presented her affidavit of chief examination repeating the facts of the reply to the application submitted by her. In cross-examination, this witness has stated:"It is correct to say that after Vinod filed this case and after I received notice in this case, on 02.08.2019, I had lodged a case against Vinod, Vinod's mother, father and his brother in Raniwada Police Station." "It is correct to say that on 02.08.2019, I had lodged a dowry case in Raniwada Police Station." This makes it clear that the non-applicant has filed a dowry harassment case after the applicant had filed a divorce case. She further stated that "It is correct to say that the case filed by me in Raniwada Court has been decided and in that decision, Vinod and all others have been acquitted." It is clear from this that the action was taken by the non- applicant out of a feeling of revenge. The non-applicant has mentioned about the assault and filing of a case in her reply application and statements but has not presented any document in that regard. The non-applicant has given a statement in dowry case number 53/2020 in the Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate Raniwada Jalore that "I do not know Praveen Kumar alias Dinesh, son of Manaram ji, but he lives in front of my house. It is correct to say that my husband had forbidden me to talk to Praveen Kumar alias Dinesh on mobile." Whereas the non-applicant has stated in her statement N.A.W. 01 that "My elder father-in-law Leela Ram's house is in front of my house in Kalandri. Manaram's house is a little far from my house, I do not know how far it is." In this way, there is contradiction in the statements of the non-applicant, which are not worthy of being relied upon. And it is evident that the above statements were made in an attempt to hide the relationship between non-applicant No.01 and non-applicant No.02. But non-applicant No.02, Praveen Kumar alias Dinesh Kumar has not been produced in evidence in relation to the above statements and not living in adultery by the non-applicant and in such a situation, the oral and documentary evidence presented by the applicant clearly proves that the non-applicants reside in adultery. But non-applicant No.02, Praveen Kumar alias Dinesh Kumar has not been produced in evidence in relation to the above statements and not living in adultery by the non-applicant and in such a situation, the oral and documentary evidence presented by the applicant clearly proves that the non-applicants reside in adultery. In order to make the above evidence false, the non-applicant has stated that the applicant's family members used to demand dowry from the non-applicant's parents and that such action was taken when dowry was not given. But the non-applicant has not produced her parents from whom dowry was demanded by the applicant and his parents in evidence, due to which the non-applicant's statement that dowry was demanded from her parents has also not been proved and in the judgment of the case filed in Raniwada Court against the applicant and his family members for harassing the non-applicant for dowry, Vinod and all others have been acquitted and the non-applicant’s leaving one of her sons with the applicant and living in her parental house for the last five years without having physical relations with the applicant also comes under the category of cruelty towards the husband. Thus the non-applicant's acts come under the category of adultery and cruelty, which the applicant has been successful in proving well. Therefore, The respondent leaving one of her sons with the applicant and staying in her parental home for the last five years without having physical relations with the applicant also comes under the category of cruelty towards the husband. Thus the acts of the respondent come under the category of adultery and cruelty, which the applicant has been able to prove well. Therefore, both the above mentioned issues are decided in favour of the applicant and against the non-applicant. Issue No. 3:- 16- From the consideration of issue No. 1 and 2, the applicant has been able to prove in his favour the facts of cruelty meted out to him and the fact that non-applicant No. 1 is residing in adultery, therefore, he is entitled to get a decree of divorce from the non-applicant. Therefore, the said case is decided in favour of the the applicant and against the non-applicants. 14. Pertinently, in the present case, both the parties have taken a stand that their matrimonial relations have not been a bed of roses and there have been multiple discords and quarrels between them. Therefore, the said case is decided in favour of the the applicant and against the non-applicants. 14. Pertinently, in the present case, both the parties have taken a stand that their matrimonial relations have not been a bed of roses and there have been multiple discords and quarrels between them. A bare perusal of the record of the case shows that the petitioner- respondent no. 1 has sought divorce from the appellant- wife on two counts- firstly, on account of his wife having voluntarily entered into sexual intercourse with a man other than her spouse; and thus living in adultery; and secondly on account of the cruelty inflicted upon him due to her incorrigible conduct and lodging of false and frivolous criminal case against him, and his family members. 15. We will now proceed to evaluate and appreciate the evidence brought on record on the above-mentioned grounds. In respect of establishing that the appellant- wife was living in adultery or had voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse with a person other than the respondent no. 1, the witnesses A.W.02 Govind and A.W.03 Genaram were produced before the learned Family Court. 15.1. A.W.02 Govind is the real brother of the respondent no. 1 Vinod Kumar who also used to reside with appellant- Neetu. The witness in his statements recorded in the affidavit produced by him as well as in his statements recorded during the course of trial has stated in great detail that he had seen the appellant- Neetu in a compromising position with one Praveen Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar (respondent no. 2) in an under-constructed house at Porwalon ki Gali, at village Kalandri in the month of June, 2018. Upon seeing them, he had shouted upon which respondent no. 2 came towards him and threatened him of dire consequences. Thereafter, upon reaching home, he had disclosed the incident to the respondent no.1 and his family. The witness has maintained his stance in the cross-examination as well. 15.2. A.W.03 Genaram is the elder cousin of respondent no. 1 who in the written affidavit submitted by him has put forth grave allegations of extra- marital affair upon the appellant- Neetu and has deposed of being acquainted with the love affair of the appellant- Neetu with respondent no. 2 since 2016. 15.2. A.W.03 Genaram is the elder cousin of respondent no. 1 who in the written affidavit submitted by him has put forth grave allegations of extra- marital affair upon the appellant- Neetu and has deposed of being acquainted with the love affair of the appellant- Neetu with respondent no. 2 since 2016. The testimony of this witness is also unwavered and he too in his cross- examination has clearly stated that he had seen the appellant- Neetu in the company of respondent no. 2 on many occasions. 16. With regard to the burden of proof resting upon the petitioner- respondent no.1, this Court is conscious of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a plethora of cases wherein it has been held that in case of a matrimonial matter, stricter burden of proof as required in the case of a criminal offence i.e. proving a case beyond reasonable doubt is not casted upon the parties and the parties have to prove their case only to the extent of preponderance of probabilities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with a divorce petition filed on ground of cruelty in “N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane” , AIR 1975 SC 1534 .[see also “Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddy”, AIR 1988 SC 121 .] has held: 24. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it is proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he links that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note: "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the 3 AIR 1975 SC 1534 . 4 AIR 1988 SC 121 . 18. truth of the issue" Per Dixon, J. in Wright v. Wright (1948) 77 C.L.R. 191 or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear" Blyth v. Blyth [1966] 1 A.E.R. 534. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged.…” 16.1. It is a settled law that when imputations upon the character of a woman or she having committed a matrimonial offence is alleged by her husband, the same is to be viewed strictly by the Court as such a conduct is considered to be highly disgraceful conduct by the society. (refer, “Shantibai v. Rambilas” , [[1999] DMC 111 (Mad.).] ). This Court finds that the unimpeachable testimony of A.W.02 Govind clearly establishes that the appellant-Neetu had entered into sexual relations with a man other than her husband. In the case at hand, both the witnesses produced by respondent no. 1 are though close relatives of respondent no. 1- Vinod Kumar, yet they did not deny that they were well aware of the questionable antecedent of the appellant- Neetu. 16.2. It is peculiar in the present case that the respondent no. In the case at hand, both the witnesses produced by respondent no. 1 are though close relatives of respondent no. 1- Vinod Kumar, yet they did not deny that they were well aware of the questionable antecedent of the appellant- Neetu. 16.2. It is peculiar in the present case that the respondent no. 2 being a relative, did not step in the dock to depose in favour of the appellant- wife or refuted the allegations levelled against him. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any cogent and relevant material on the record of this case to hold that appellant- Neetu was able to sufficiently discharge her onus to prove the case put forth by her, particularly when, there is unimpeachable and reliable testimony of an eye-witness against her. There is no direct or corroborative evidence led by the appellant- wife apart from her own statement which is self- contradictory. This Court thus finds that the findings of facts recorded against the appellant- Neetu that she entered into physical relations with a man other than her husband and having lived in adultery do not suffer from any infirmity or perversity whatsoever. 17. Now, with regard to the evidence brought forth by respondent no. 1 as to the allegations of cruelty levelled upon the appellant- wife, this Court upon careful scanning of the materials produced on the record, pertinently, from the divorce petition as well as the reply submitted by the parties, finds that the wife as well intended to live separately from the husband. This has been brought forth by the husband that she had been blackmailing him consistently to go and live with someone else which clearly shows that she did not intend to reconcile her relations with him (refer, “Lachman Uttamchand Kriplani v. Meena” , [[1964] 4 SCR 331.] ). Manifestly, in the case at hand, the parties are living separately since 2018 and the wife did not make any attempt to reconcile her relations with her husband which proves that she was not interested in sustaining her matrimonial relationship, thereby depriving the husband of mutual companionship and conjugal relations and now sufficient time has passed since the divorce decree was passed by the learned Family Court, Sirohi. 17.1. This Court further finds that both the parties have alleged cruelty to have been inflicted upon them by each other. 17.1. This Court further finds that both the parties have alleged cruelty to have been inflicted upon them by each other. However, from a perusal of the record of the case, it is manifest that a criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 of IPC was lodged against the respondent No.1 by the appellant- Neetu in which after due trial, no offences so alleged was found to be proved by the learned trial Court. In the opinion of this Court, the conduct of the appellant- Neetu in launching false and frivolous case against the respondent no. 1 and his family amounts to cruelty being inflicted upon the respondent no. 1 by his wife. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that apart from living separately from her husband, the appellant- Neetu had on previous occasions also falsely levelled serious allegation of dowry demand upon respondent no. 1 and his family which clearly amounts to cruelty for which there can be no condonation. 18. In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances as well as the precedent law cited above, this Court finds that the conduct of the wife towards her husband is not that of normal wear and tear of a married life. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Family Court that the appellant Neetu had inflicted mental cruelty upon her husband (respondent no.1) does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity whatsoever. 19. This Court thus does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment warranting interference therewith. 20. Accordingly, D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1239/2024 is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.