Chandra Prakash, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9 -5 -1966 of Sri P.N. Misra, Second Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh modifying the decree of the trial court.
(2.) PLAINTIFF -Appellant was married to the Defendant -Respondent more than 10 or 12 years before the suit. The suit giving rise to the second appeal was instituted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant -Respondent for the dissolution of her marriage and the recovery of Rs. 101/ - as her dower debt on the allegations that at the time of her marriage with the Defendant her dower debt was fixed at Rs. 101/ -. Four children were born to the Plaintiff -Appellant from the Defendant -Respondent, out of them two were alive. It was alleged that the Defendant was a man of bad temperament and character and used to beat the Plaintiff. Shortly after the Plaintiff gave birth to her last child, the Defendant mercilessly beat her and turned her out. Plaintiff went away to her father along with her children. It was alleged that the Defendant has failed to maintain the Plaintiff and her children for 3 years preceding the suit. It was also pleaded that the Defendant has married one Shrimati Hasina and notwithstanding the request of the Plaintiff the defendant has failed to maintain her. On the above allegations the Plaintiff wanted the dissolution of her marriage and the recovery of Rs. 101/ - as dower debt. Defendant -Respondent resisted the claim of the Plaintiff that the dower debt of the Plaintiff was only Rs. 35/ -. It was alleged that the Plaintiff lived peacefully with the Defendant for 13 or 14 years. It was further pleaded that the brother and father of the Plaintiff came to the house of the Defendant during the latter's absence and took away the Plaintiff and her children with them together with her ornaments and the cash. Defendant lodged a complaint under Section 498 Code of Criminal Procedure also. It was also pleaded that the Defendant got his criminal case dismissed at the instance of the Plaintiff's father on the promise to send the Plaintiff back; that the Defendant was never guilty of any cruelty of conduct with the Plaintiff. It was also alleged that the Plaintiff was of bad character and had developed illicit connection with one Jamil.
(3.) THE trial court framed 3 issues in the case and after discussing the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that Defendant was not guilty of any cruelty of conduct towards the Plaintiff and did not ever beat her or turn her out. He also held that the Plaintiff had been living with her father for the preceding three years and since the Defendant has failed to pay any maintenance to the Plaintiff or her children, the Plaintiff was entitled to get her marriage dissolved. He also held that the dower debt of the Plaintiff was Rs. 101/ -. On the above findings the trial court decreed the Plaintiff's suit for the dissolution of marriage and recovery of Rs. 101/ - as dower debt. Against the above decree the Defendant filed an appeal in the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court after perusing the entire evidence on record concurred with the findings of the trial court that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Defendant turned her out or beat her or treated her with cruelty. He further held that it was correct to say that the Plaintiff was residing with her father for the last preceding 3 years. It was also held that the Defendant was not responsible for the Plaintiff's stay at her father's house and, therefore, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any dissolution of marriage. He also held that dower debt of the Plaintiff was only Rs. 35/ -. The lower appellate court, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial court so far as the dissolution of the marriage was concerned and modified the decree for the recovery of dower debt for Rs. 101/ - to Rs. 35/ -. Feeling aggrieved, the Plaintiff has come up in appeal before me.;