ORDER :

1. Original Suit No. 30 of 2003/Matrimonial Title Suit No. 30 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Original Suit No. 30 of 2003) filed by Smt. Vibha Singh @ Bebi Kumari Singh who was the wife of Dilip Kumar Singh has been decreed vide judgment dated 07th March 2006 and the marriage solemnised between them on 19th May 1995 was dissolved with a direction to Dilip Kumar Singh to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to Smt. Vibha Singh from the date of the decree in Original Suit No. 30 of 2003.

2. The appellant filed an execution case vide Miscellaneous Execution Case No. 3 of 2006 in Original Suit No. 30 of 2003 for compliance of payment of Rs. 1,000/- per month. About eleven years thereafter, an application under section 25(2) and (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short HM Act) was filed by Dilip Kumar Singh on the ground that his wife had been living an adulterous life in respect of which a finding was recorded in Maintenance Case No. 63 of 1997, however, that was suppressed by her, or, not considered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi while granting maintenance and decreeing the divorce suit.

3. The aforesaid application under section 25(2) and (3) of the HM Act has been allowed, against which the present First Appeal has been preferred.

4. Original Suit No. 30 of 2003 was instituted by Smt. Vibha Singh seeking a decree of divorce on the ground that her husband has inflicted such cruelty upon her that it became difficult for her to stay with him in the matrimonial home. She gave various instances of her sufferings and mental agony at the hands of her husband and pleaded that on 20th December 1995, 31st December 1995 and 20th May 1997 her father paid money to her husband. Still, her sufferings in her matrimonial home continued and, therefore, she left the company of her husband on 22nd June 1997. She examined herself as PW-1 and admitted in her cross-examination that she suffered miscarriage while she was carrying pregnancy of eight months. However, she denied the suggestion that she had undergone abortion on 18th October 1997 in the clinic of Dr. Papiya Rai and, that, in GR Case No. 631 of 1997 she made a statement that she got her pregnancy terminated by the said Dr. Papiya Rai. Her witness Sudhir Singh who was examined as PW-2 supported her in the Court on the issue of demand of dowry and her harassment and torture in her matrimonial home.

5. Dilip Kumar Singh who was respondent in the divorce suit did not file his written statement but tendered evidence in the Court as RW-1. He deposed in the Court that his wife had illicit relationship with Dinesh Sahu R/o Qr. No. DT 1722, Dhurwa and that, she deserted him and filed several cases against him and his family members. He has further stated in the Court that the maintenance case was dismissed on the ground that the wife was found to have been living an adulterous life. He instituted Matrimonial Title Suit No. 28A of 1997 for divorce which was withdrawn by him for filing a joint petition under section 13-B of the HM Act and, in connection thereof, he paid some money to his wife but due to his ill health he could not appear in the Court and, as such, the said application was dismissed in default on 15th January 2002. By that time, in GR Case No. 631 of 1997 which was filed by Smt. Vibha Singh, the allegations against him were found false and concocted leading to his acquittal.

6. From the aforesaid evidences which were laid by the parties in Original Suit No. 30 of 2003, it is quite apparent that there was specific pleading by the respondent as regards illicit relationship of the appellant with one Dinesh Sahu. There is also a reference about maintenance case which according to the respondent was dismissed on the ground that the applicant was leading an adulterous life. The above being the factual scenario, it cannot be contended that the decree in Original Suit No. 30 of 2003 was obtained by playing fraud by the appellant.

7. To recapitulate, in the judgment date