Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kalsi vs Mrs. Dimple on 23 September, 2009
FAO No. M-157 of 2001
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. M-157 of 2001
Date of decision: 23.09.2009
Rajinder Kalsi
....Appellant
versus
Mrs. Dimple
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: - Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. KVS Kang, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate,
for the respondent.
***
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
This appeal by the appellant-husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhari, vide which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for annulment of marriage, was ordered to be dismissed.
The case set up by the appellant was, that the parties were married at Patiala on 1.7.1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was arranged through advertisement in the newspaper got published by the father of the respondent. In the advertisement issued, it was mentioned that respondent belonged to a respectable family, apart from her academic qualifications and family background, she enjoyed sound health and had no ailment or physical disease of any type and FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -2- further that she could be an ideal housewife conversant with cooking etc. After the initial correspondence, meeting was fixed in April, 1994 with the respondent at Patiala at the house of her parents. The case set up by the appellant was, that when the appellant along with his parents reached Patiala to see the respondent, at that time, she was dressed in salwar and kameez and except her facial complexion and palms, she had kept her entire body covered. The appellant did not detect any foul play nor it could be possible to detect, if she was suffering from any skin disease or physical ailment. It was also the case that parents of the respondent showered great hospitality on the appellant and his parents so as to influence them in such a manner, that the appellant and his parents agree to the proposal of marriage of their daughter with the appellant. The appellant in bona fide and honest manner gave his consent for marriage, consequently, the marriage was fixed on 1.7.1994.
After marriage, the respondent came to house of the appellant at Yamuna Nagar. The marriage was solemnised in a simple manner. On the very first night, when the appellant asked the respondent to undress herself with intent to consummate the marriage, he was stunned and spell bound, to find that she was having skin disease, inter alia there were two big white spots on abdomen with coloured tapes pasted thereon. Later on, it was revealed that she had undergone operation to hide her skin disease. Till then those parts of the body had not healed up, rather blood and puss were oozing out of these parts of the body.
The case of appellant was that, the fact concealed from the appellant gave a severe mental jerk and shock to the appellant. It was FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -3- also the case of the appellant, that he found that the skin disease of the respondent was since last 12-13 years, prior to marriage. The fact was admitted by her on the first night. It was pleaded that respondent admitted that the information regarding her skin disease was suppressed by her parents, and the respondent, at the time when respondent was shown to the appellant, and his parents and even prior thereto. The factum of dreadful disease of incurable nature was kept top secret. It was pleaded that fraud was played with him, to have his consent to marriage.
The respondent wife also failed to disclose anything about the nature of her treatment or the operation undergone by her or whether the ailment was curable. It was on the suggestion and persuasion of the appellant, that the respondent gave her willingness for thorough checkup and medical treatment, so that the appellant could be satisfied whether the disease of the respondent was curable or not. It was made clear that till then the appellant will not accept her as his wife. It was pleaded case that the marriage between the parties was not consummated.
On 9.7.1994, the respondent was taken to Delhi where she was medically examined by skin specialist at Skin Institute, New Delhi. She was thoroughly examined by the doctor, who declared that respondent was suffering from vitiligo (progressive), and that the disease was existing on her body for the last 10 to 12 years. The doctor also found that the blood and puss was oozing out from those parts of the body of the respondent where she had pasted coloured tapes. The doctor also opined that the disease from which the respondent was suffering was incurable and hereditary, and also contagious in nature. It was further FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -4- revealed by the doctor, that any child that may born, could also have such disease.
The appellant further pleaded that respondent admitted that she had been shown to various skin specialists and doctors for treatment by her parents, who had also opined that the chances of controlling of further spread of this disease were meagre, and that the complete cure even with best treatment/medicines was impossible. It was also pleaded, that respondent was reluctant to attend the skin institute at Delhi for medical treatment, and was prepared to leave for the house of her parents. In spite of the best efforts of the appellant, she was not ready to go for medical treatment or for advice to abovesaid skin institute. She continued to stay with her parents. It was also the case of the appellant, that the parents of the respondent also admitted this bodily defect in the respondent i.e. skin disease, and further admitted that this was not revealed by them intentionally and deliberately with intention that the marriage between the appellant and respondent could be solemnised. Therefore, the case set up by the appellant was, that deliberate fraud and mis-representation was practised upon him by the respondent and her parents, which caused great mental cruelty and torture to him.
The case of the appellant was, that respondent stayed in the house of the appellant at Yamuna Nagar only for about two weeks, and that this period was spent in pursuing the medical checkup and treatment of the respondent from Delhi, but ultimately she declined to continue with her treatment and left the matrimonial home. The divorce was, therefore, sought on the ground of fraud and mis-representation.
The petition was contested, wherein preliminary objection was FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -5- taken, that the petition had been filed to pressurise the parents of the respondent to meet illegal demand of dowry i.e. Maruti car and Rs.2.00 lac in cash. The demand was said to have been raised after one month of the marriage. It was pleaded, that on their refusal, she was maltreated, and physical beating was given to her. It was under compelled circumstances that the parents of the respondent went to Yamuna Nagar and brought her back to Patiala in three clothings. Other objections regarding maintainability were also taken.
It was pleaded, that attempt was also made to get the ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage by threatening her on telephone that in case she came to Jagadhari, she would be abducted and killed. On this account on 25.8.1995, when a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed and the case was adjourned for reply, while she was coming out of the Court, the appellant, his father and 7-8 persons came in two cars bearing Nos. DL-3C-E-2054 and HR-02-B-3737 and tried to abduct the respondent, with an intention to kill her. When number of persons collected there, on raising of hue and cry by the respondent, all the accused ran away after giving threats. Request was made to the Court for registration of criminal case.
On merits, allegations were denied. It was pleaded, that after the matrimonial advertisement, there was exchange of letters. On 17.4.1994, the appellant's parents, sister and her husband came to Patiala to see the respondent, where they remained for four hours. It was pleaded, that from face, respondent is extraordinary beautiful and that the parents of the respondent informed the parents of the appellant, that respondent was having one white spot at her left inside wrist and one FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -6- white spot each near ankle of both the legs, and further that there was also a white spot on the abdomen. The mother and sister of the appellant were asked to see the white spots on the part of her abdomen and after seeing all white spots and comparing personality of the respondent, they agreed to the proposal, but subject to the acceptance by the appellant. They were happily seen off in the evening of 17.4.1994.
The appellant, his maternal uncle, aunt and the appellant thereafter came to Patiala on 2.5.1994, and the appellant had already been told by his parents with regard to white spots. The appellant again asked the parents of the respondent to show white spots on abdomen, as it stood covered. On the asking of the appellant, she was asked to bear saree in which white spot was visible, whereas other spots were not visible. The appellant was satisfied. She was even taken to market. They even went to a hotel and had snacks there and came back at 7.00 p.m. The appellant, his parents, maternal uncle and aunt gave their consent to the matrimonial alliance. Roka ceremony was performed, where photographs were taken on 2.5.1994, and the family members of the appellant were fully satisfied.
It was on the asking of the appellant that respondent went for minor operation for abdomen's white spot with plastic surgery, which was performed on 25.5.1994, whereas the marriage was solemnised on 1.7.1994 and by that time the plastic surgery stood cured completely. After the engagement ceremony also the appellant visited the house of the respondent one more time before the marriage along with his cousin. On two-three occasions, the parents of the appellant also visited Patiala before marriage.
FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -7- It was also pleaded that a sum of Rs.5.00 lac (Rupees five lac only) was spent in giving gifts and dowry articles, including gold articles, as per the demand of the appellant and his parents. The parents of the appellant also brought sufficient items as wari articles on the day of marriage. All the dowry and wari articles were taken to Yamuna Nagar after the marriage ceremony. The respondent was kept in nice manner, but just after a month, the appellant and his parents started demanding new Maruti car and sum of Rs.2.00 lac (Rupees two lac only) in cash. It was on refusal of the respondent and her father, that the appellant started abusing the parents of the respondent and gave physical beatings to her. As already mentioned above, she was thereafter taken back to her parental home.
The plea that the marriage was not consummated was also denied, by specifically pleading that cohabitation took place between the parties at Yamuna Nagar, Delhi and Raunka Ji. Appellant was satisfied with the nature and behaviour of the respondent. It was after they came from honeymoon trip that murmur of less dowry started. It was also pleaded that parents of the appellant arranged reception on 3.7.1994, which was attended by the parents of the respondent, where a set of gold, and one woolen suit was given to the appellant. Gifts were also given to other family members. It was specifically pleaded, that if there would have been any problem on the night of 1.7.1994, there was no occasion for appellant to arrange the reception party, nor would have appellant come with the respondent for phera ceremony on 4.7.1994. They would not have gone to honeymoon trip to Delhi and Raunka Ji. It was also pleaded, that marriage was consummated.
FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -8- As regards the allegation that she was medically examined at Delhi, the stand taken by the respondent was, that skin specialist, in the present of the respondent had informed the appellant that this was a minor problem, which could be solved by plastic surgery. It was also pleaded, that there was no risk for birth of children. The doctor had also prescribed some medicines, but as the appellant was not satisfied with the dowry, he might have procured some false documents. It was also the case set up, that all the facts were brought to the notice of the appellant.
In the replication, the averments made in the petition were reasserted and that of written statement were denied.
On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Matrimonial Court was pleased to frame the following issues: -
"1. Whether the consent of the petitioner for marriage was obtained by concealing the skin disease of the respondent, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPP
2. Whether the petition has not been verified according to rules, as alleged? OPR
3. Relief."
In support of the case, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and Madan Mohan Mehra as PW2, he also placed on record the response letter to the matrimonial advertisement Ex. PA, the treatment card Ex. P1, prescription slip P2 and closed his evidence.
The respondent in her evidence examined A.D. Sharma, Manager, H.P. Tourism Corporation, as RW1, Kesar Singh as RW2, Dr. Gurpartap Singh also as RW2 (wrongly mentioned), K.M. Saxena as RW3, she herself appeared as RW4, C. Parshotam Kumar as RW5, FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -9- Reghbir Singh Dhiman as RW6 and Viman Madra, A.G.M., Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar, as RW7 and also placed on record the photographs Ex. R1 to Ex. R4, prescription slip R5, register of hotel at Renuka Ji Ex. R6, FIR Ex. R7, letters Ex. R9 to Ex. R11, complaints Ex. R12 to Ex. R16, letter Ex. R17 and bills Ex.RW7/1 and additional documents, which were marked, and closed her evidence.
The respondent during the proceedings moved an application for medico-legal examination, on which the learned Court directed the respondent to get herself medico-legally examined regarding disease of leucoderma vitiligo from PGI, Rohtak's skin specialist. The PGI authorities examined the respondent and submitted their report on 18.9.2000, which was received in the Court on 20.9.2000. According to this report, the medical authorities opined that patient was to be examined continuously over a long period for comparison, and to observe for development of new lesions and extension of existing lesions.
In view of the report, the learned Court again directed the respondent to get herself medico-legally examined, in view of application moved in this regard. Vide second report submitted by PT. B.D.S., PGIMS, Rohtak, authorities opined that the course of disease in this patient was of slow progressive nature.
But none of the parties exhibited these reports, or placed reliance thereon, but the Court took judicial notice of the medical report submitted by the medical board and held that the respondent was suffering from vitiligo vulgaris.
The learned Matrimonial Court proceeded to hold, that FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -10- decisive factor in this case was not the existence of the disease, rather, the Court was to adjudicate as to whether the fact, that respondent was suffering from some skin disease was disclosed to the appellant before marriage or not, and the Court was further to see as to whether on coming to know about the concealed facts, the parties lived like husband and wife and consummated marriage or not.
The learned Matrimonial Court held, that though the appellant tried to substantiate the pleadings, but none of the family members, i.e. father, mother, sister, sister's husband, maternal uncle and maternal aunt were examined, in spite of specific stand taken in the written statement, that the white spots were shown to them on 17.4.1994.
The respondent in her statement had again reasserted the stand taken in the written statement. The learned Matrimonial Court held, that in view of the stand taken, it was incumbent upon the appellant to have examined the women folk of the family, so as to establish on record, whether these white spots were shown to them or not.
The learned Court held, that the appellant also did not examine any family members to prove the allegations, as to whether the fact of skin disease was disclosed to them after the first night or not. The learned Matrimonial Court also held, that though appellant pleaded, that doctor at Yamuna Nagar was consulted, but neither the name of the doctor was disclosed nor any doctor was examined.
The learned Court also held, that it was case of the appellant, that the reception had taken place on 3.7.1994 at Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar, where the parents of the respondent had also come, but admittedly no complaint was made to them about the white spots, on the FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -11- body of respondent.
The learned Court further held, that though the appellant denied the phera ceremony on 4.7.1994, but he could not disclose for what reasons he did not perform the phera ceremony on 4.7.1994. The learned Court on application of evidence that the fact of phera ceremony on 4.7.1994 was concealed. According to RW4, the couple stayed at parental house of the respondent at Patiala from 4.7.1994 to 6.7.1994, and furthermore she specifically deposed that couple had gone to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in connection with operation of abdomen, where the appellant was even introduced to the concerned doctor.
In support of her version, the respondent examined her father, who deposed that the appellant had visited Patiala on 4.7.1994 where he stayed upto 6.7.1994, and that couple had also visited Rajindra Hospital for checkup.
RW3 was examined, to depose that the parties were invited by him on 4.7.1994 for dinner and at that time no complaint was made by the appellant, with regard to skin disease.
Dr. Gurpartap Singh appeared as RW2, who deposed that he treated the respondent Dimple, and further deposed that she was examined on 4.7.1994, where she introduced her husband to him. He was identified by him, in the Court.
The learned Matrimonial Court, therefore, held that the fact of phera ceremony stood proved, which was being concealed by the appellant. The learned Court, thus, held that the appellant was guilty of suppression of material facts from the Court.
The learned Matrimonial Court held, that in order to lend FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -12- credence to his depositions, it was necessary for the appellant to have examined his father and other family members, as it was natural for him to have informed his parents about the white spots, in case, it was observed for the first time on the first night of marriage as per the case set up. The learned Court, therefore, held, that the best evidence was withheld, and the doctor who was said to have been consulted immediately thereafter, was also not examined.
The plea of the appellant that the marriage was not consummated, was also not accepted, in view of the specific stand taken in the written statement that the cohabitation had taken place at Yamuna Nagar, Delhi and Renuka Ji. The appellant had concealed these visits. The visit to these places for honeymoon stood proved by evidence.
He even denied his visit to Renuka Ji on 13.7.1994, whereas in support of this fact, respondent examined RW1 A.D. Sharma, Manager, H.P. Tourism Corporation, posted at Renuka Ji Lake, who proved the relevant entry Ex. R6 regarding booking of hotel of Himachal Pradesh Tourism Corporation. He deposed with definite conclusion, that on 13.7.1994 at 3.00 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Rajinder Kalsi, resident of H. No. 24, Sarojini Colony, Yamuna Nagar, had gone to their hotel, and stayed for a night. It was also specifically deposed, that they visited Renuka Ji on 13.7.1994 for honeymoon, and they had taken a room of H.P. Tourism Corporation, entry Ex. R6 was made and signed by appellant in her presence. The learned Court held that it was proved that the couple visited Renuka Ji on 13.7.1994 and stayed for a night in the hotel. The learned Court further held, that RW4 stated with definite conclusion, that at Madhu Hotel marriage was consummated on 2.7.1994, and white FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -13- spots operated had gone dry by that time.
The learned Matrimonial Court found, that the appellant had booked a decorated room in Madhu Hotel, but in the cross-examination he denied the suggestion, that on first night after the marriage, he stayed with the respondent in Madhu Hotel.
According to appellant, two rooms in the hotel were booked for guests, whereas they stayed at home. This deposition was found to be false, in view of testimony of RW7, who deposed that for decorated room/floor charges were Rs.400/-, which were paid. The learned Court rightly held, that decorated room is booked only for newly weds.
The stand of the appellant, that the room could have been decorated for guests was found to be unbelievable. The learned Court found that the appellant was suppressing the material fact of consummation of marriage. The learned Court also did not believe the testimony of the appellant, that he did not complain about the white spots on 3.7.1994, as he was not sure by that time whether the nature of the disease was curable or not.
The learned Matrimonial Court, therefore, held that once, the appellant himself stated that he did not take that disease to be serious, it would have certainly resulted in consummation of marriage.
The learned Matrimonial Court on the findings referred to above, decided issue No. 1 against the appellant by holding, that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the respondent regarding white spots on her body, and that the consent of the appellant was not obtained by concealing true facts.
Issue No. 2 was not pressed, therefore, was decided against the FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -14- appellant, the petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was ordered to be dismissed.
Mr. Arun Palli, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently contended that the learned Matrimonial Court erred in law in not accepting the petition in as much as the skin disease of the respondent was incurable and heritable, therefore, it could not be believed that the appellant would have given his consent to marriage, in case, he was in know of the disease, as stated by respondent.
The learned senior counsel referred to Ex. PA i.e. letter written by father of the respondent in response to the matrimonial advertisement, wherein he had not mentioned about the skin disease of the respondent.
The reading of Ex. PA does not show that the father of the respondent had mentioned that the respondent enjoyed sound health and was having no physical ailment or disease and that she can be an ideal housewife, conversant with cooking etc. In response to the matrimonial advertisement, the only detail given about the respondent was, her age, qualification and colour. Thus, it cannot be accepted, that any mis- statement was made in response to the matrimonial advertisement, as contended.
The learned senior counsel also referred to the statement of RW6 i.e. father of the respondent, wherein there was admission by him that he had not disclosed regarding white patches on his first visit to Yamuna Nagar, and further that discussions at that occasion were only general.
On consideration, I find no force in this contention. Once a specific stand was taken by the respondent in the written statement, that FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -15- white patches were shown to the family members of the appellant, the least which could be done was to examine them. The failure of the appellant to examine them can lead to no other conclusion, but to draw adverse inference, and accept the evidence of the respondent, which stood duly corroborated. The learned Matrimonial Court, therefore, was right in coming to the conclusion, that the appellant failed to prove the fraud and mis-representation.
The learned senior counsel for the appellant also vehemently contended, that the appellant was entitled to decree of dissolution because disease was incurable and progressive in nature, as per medical evidence. It was also the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the medical evidence on record further showed that the disease was likely to be inherited by the children and, therefore, the concealment of incurable nature of disease itself amounted to fraud and mis-representation.
The legislation in its wisdom did not include the vitiligo to be one of the diseases, on the basis of which divorce could be granted. The diseases on which the party is entitled to divorce, are given in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which does not include this disease to be one of the diseases, even though incurable in nature. The learned Matrimonial Court, therefore, was right in holding that in order to succeed, the only plea available to the appellant was of fraud and mis- representation, but he failed to prove this ground. The evidence on record proved that he was aware of the white patches, on the body of the respondent prior to marriage.
Vitiligo is a chronic disorder that causes depigmentation in FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -16- patches of skin . It occurs when the melanocytes, the cells responsible for skin pigmentation which are derived from the neural crest, die or are unable to function. The precise pathogenesis, or cause, of vitiligo is complex and not yet fully understood. There is some evidence suggesting it is caused by a combination of autoimmune, genetic, and environmental factors. It is also common in people with thyroid disorders. The population incidence worldwide is considered to be less than 1 percent. Non-segmental vitiligo has a greater prevalence than the disorder's other form(s).
Study of this disease shows, that following treatments are available with regard to vitiligo: -
"There are a number of ways to alter the appearance of vitiligo without addressing its underlying cause. In mild cases, vitiligo patches can be hidden with makeup or other cosmetic camouflage solutions. If the affected person is pale-skinned, the patches can be made less visible by avoiding sunlight and the sun tanning of unaffected skin. However, exposure to sunlight may also cause the melanocytes to regenerate to allow the pigmentation to come back to its original color.
Home UVB narrowband phototherapy is a very common a approach that treats vitiligo. The exposure to a UVB light comes from a small UVB narrowband lamp that gives a specific wavelength of only 311-313 nanometer. The power of the lamp is very low and there is no heat. The success rate is very high in children and in adults when the spots are on the face and neck. Exposure times vary; treatment frequency ranges from two to three times per week with a gradual increase in exposure every subsequent session.
The source for the UVB narrowband UVB light can be kind FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -17- of a fluorescent lamps that treat large areas in a few minutes or high power fiber-optic devices in a fraction of a second, in a clinic.
Long-wave ultraviolet (UVA) light from UVA lamps, with Psoralen, called "PUVA", is given in clinics. It helps in most of the cases. Psoralen can be taken in a pill 1-2 hours before the exposure or as a Psoralen soaking of the area ½ hour before the exposure.
Lately, UVB narrowband replaces PUVA since this treatment does not involve Psoralen since the effect of the UVB narrowband lamp is sufficient.
The traditional treatment (if any) given by most dermatologists is corticosteroid cream.
Studies have also shown that immunomodulator creams such as Protopic and Elidel also cause repigmentation in some cases, when used with UVB narrowband treatments.
Alternatively, some people with vitiligo opt for chemical depigmentation, which uses 20% monobenzone (monobenzylether of hydroquinone). This process is irreversible and generally ends up with complete or mostly complete depigmentation.
In late October 2004, doctors successfully transplanted melanocytes to vitiligo affected areas, effectively repigmenting the region. The procedure involved taking a thin layer of pigmented skin from the patient's gluteal region. Melanocytes were then separated out and used to make a cellular suspension. The area to be treated was then ablated with a medical laser, and the melanocyte graft applied. Three weeks later, the area was exposed to UV light repeatedly for two months. Between 73 and 84 percent of patients experienced nearly complete repigmentation of their skin. The longevity of the repigmentation differed from person to person. In the FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -18- 1980s, dermatology professor Aaron B. Lerner had pioneered a skin transplantation therapy for vitiligo.
In early 2008 scientists at King's College London discovered that piperine, a chemical derived from black pepper, can shorten the repigmentation process in skin and reduce the UVB exposures, produces a longer lasting and more even pigmentation.
A limited 2003 study in India of 25 patients with limited and slow-spreading vitiligo given orally-taken Ginkgo biloba found it to be "fairly effective therapy for arresting the progression of the disease". A 2008 review of natural health products found studies to generally be of poor quality but concluded that L-phenylalanine used with phototherapy, and oral Ginkgo biloba as monotherapy showed promise."
The report referred to above shows that disease does not, in any way, interfere with the matrimonial obligations. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant, the disease being incurable, is a ground for grant of divorce, also cannot be accepted.
The learned senior counsel also contended, that the learned Matrimonial Court wrongly believed the evidence led by the respondent to show, that the parties celebrated their honeymoon, and referred to the cross-examination of the Manager of H.P. Tourism Corporation, to contend that once he admitted that the entry was not made in his presence, no reliance could be placed on his statement.
This plea also deserves to be rejected, in view of the positive stand taken by the respondent, that the register entry was made by the appellant, in his own hand which was duly exhibited, and the appellant failed to lead any evidence to disprove this stand. FAO No. M-157 of 2001 -19- Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent, contended that the learned Matrimonial Court rightly accepted the contention of the respondent, as the entries in the hotel register were duly proved, it was also proved that the room at Madhu Hotel was decorated, therefore, no other conclusion, except the one drawn by the learned Matrimonial Court is possible.
For the reasons stated above, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The findings of the learned Matrimonial Court on issue No. 1 being based on appreciation of evidence in right prospective are affirmed. The appeal is ordered to be dismissed but with no order as to costs.
(Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 23, 2009 R.S.