JUDGMENT
Guman Singh, J.
1. The challenge in the appeal No. 648/1999 is to the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1999, passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 1 Jaipur whereby the suit instituted by the appellant (for short the “husband”) under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 was dismissed with cost. The challenge in the other Appeal No. 2118/2001 is to the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2001 passed by the Judge, Family Court Ajmer, Rajasthan whereby the suit instituted by the respondent (for short ‘the wile’) under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act was decreed and the appellant (for short ‘the husband) was directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month by way of maintenance. The aforesaid two appeals were heard together and therefore, these two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The brief facts of Appeal No. 648/1999 are that the husband, appellant herein, filed a suit against the wife with the averment that he was married with the wife Smt. Gulab on 1.7.1990. Out of their wedlock, two girls were borne. But since their relationship were not cordial, divorce proceedings were initiated by her husband on the ground of cruelty that the wife used to misbehave with the old aged mother of the husband. It was further alleged that the wife treated the husband with cruelty by threatening with dire consequences and she even threatened to commit suicide if the husband failed to live separately with the wife by leaving apart his mother. It was also alleged by him that the wife left the husband on 27.6.1993 and went to Ajmer from Jaipur and thereby denied him with the marital benefits.
3. The wife filed a written statement denying all the facts as pleaded by the husband in the petition. It was stated that she had delivered 3 daughters from husband and one died after few days of her birth. The mother of the husband remained unhappy with the wife on the ground that she only had 3 daughters and that she did not bring sufficient dowry. It is alleged that in view of the aforesaid reasons, the wife was subjected to harassment and cruelty. It has also been alleged that when the wife was pregnant, the husband had himself sent her to Ajmer with her brother-in-law for delivery where the wife remained upto 16.2.1993. It is further alleged that in view Of the aforesaid circumstances, she filed a petition before the Family Court, Ajmer. But the matter was compromised between the parties and she again came to live with her husband. But the husband threw her out from his house on 27.6.1993 so that she had to live with her parents.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant husband submits that on the evidence on record there exist no ground for passing the impugned order by the learned Family Court, as such, the learned trial court has committed illegality in passing the decree in favour of the wife.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent wife has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and has contended that the judgment of the learned Family Court has been dismissed on the basis of the finding that the appellant husband failed to prove the alleged cruelty on the basis of which the petitioner had filed a petition for divorce.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, the learned Family Court has discussed the evidence adduced by the parties in detail and arrived at a conclusion that the appellant husband has failed to prove the fact of cruelty on the part of the respondent wife and has observed that on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Judge Family Court was of the view that the respondent wife had always endeavored for keeping the matrimonial ties intact and it was in this light that she had earlier entered into a compromise in the Family Court vide Exhibit A-2 and joined the husband again, but the husband appellant continued to misbehave with the respondent wife and finally forced to leave for her parent’s house. We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the wife in support of her contentions and find no illegality in the order passed by the learned court below. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned Court below is just and proper and no interference is called for.
7. Consequently, this appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
8. Now, coming to the aforesaid connected appeal (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2118/2001) which has been filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2001 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 37/1999, by which the suit of the respondent wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act was decreed and the appellant husband was ordered to be paid Rs. 2000 – by way of ‘maintenance.
9. The brief facts of this appeal are almost the same to that of the-Appeal No. 648/1999 as narrated above. The only fact which remains to be added in the above sequence is that the wife respondent had averred in her petition before the Family Court that she was never looked after by the husband and she was forced to file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. wherein the husband appeared in the Family Court and admitted his fault and took the wife with him with an assurance to take care of her in future. It is alleged that after filing the petition for divorce by the husband as stated above, the wife was awarded Rs. 850/- per month by way of interim maintenance. It was further averred by the wife that her husband was in LDC in Vijaya Bank at Jaipur and drawing Rs. 10,000/- per month and in order to maintain, she need atleast Rs. 3000/-per month by way of maintenance. Her husband had opposed the aforesaid application and had alleged that he is drawing only Rs. 9,000/- from which, after deduction of Rs. 4000/-, he is getting only Rs. 5000/- as salary. He had also averred that lie purchased a Maruti Van on 4.11.1998 for which he has to pay the loan installments and it is very difficult for him to bear the expenses of house hold along with expenses for the treatment of his mother. The learned Counsel for the appellant husband has contended that the finding of the Family Court in favour of the respondent wife that he had been forced to desert the husband is erroneous and also that the finding for payment of Rs. 3000′- per month to the wife by way of maintenance is not based on’ sufficient evidence. The learned Counsel for the respondent wife has controverted the aforesaid contention.
10. Having gone through the rival submissions, we find that the learned Family Court has discussed the evidence adduced by both the parties in detail and arrived at a conclusion on proper appreciation of evidence on the points, we see no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the wife, as such, no interference is called for in the finding of the learned Family Court. The finding of fact arrived at by the Court below is just and proper and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeals No. 648/1999 and 2118/2001 filed by the appellant husband stand dismissed being devoid of merit with no order as to costs.