ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Ful Kumari Devi, who is the appellant before us, instituted Original Suit No.87 of 2015 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolution of her marriage solemnized with Kedar Singh in the year 1995.

2. By the judgment dated 9th February 2018, Original Suit No.87 of 2015 which was instituted under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda.

3. The appellant has made allegations of cruelty by her husband who abused and assaulted her and had demanded 2½ bighas of land as dowry. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement denying the aforesaid allegations levelled against him by his wife. He has set up a case that his wife under influence of some villagers started creating problems in the matrimony.

4. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda vide order dated 27th January 2016 has framed the issue; whether the plaintiff Ful Kumari Devi is entitled for divorce from her husband/defendant namely Kedar Singh on the ground of cruelty or not?

5. Both parties have examined witnesses in support of their respective case. The appellant has examined three witnesses whereas her husband has also examined three witnesses to resist her claim for divorce.

6. As PW1, the appellant has deposed in the Court that her husband has two wives and she is his third wife. Since she is the only child of her parents her husband stayed with her mother as 'Ghar Jamai'. However, later on, he picked up drinking habits and developed illicit relationship with another woman. She has stated in the Court that her husband was pressurizing her for 2½ bighas land as dowry. She has further stated that due to fear of her husband, she left home and has been supporting herself by working as maid-servant for the last two years.

7. The other two witnesses examined by the appellant have also supported her on the point of demand of 2½ bighas land by her husband and other misconducts by him.

8. However, in her cross-examination, the appellant admitted that she has been living with her mother, husband and three children at village- Danre and her husband was engaged in the agriculture works in the land belonging to her father. She could not give name of the other wives of her husband and has said that she only heard about the other wives of her husband. She has further admitted that her mother never scolded or rebuked her husband. PW2 and PW3 have also admitted that they had no information about previous marriage of Kedar Singh. They have further admitted that mother of the appellant is the owner of the land and, that, the appellant is not under the control of her mother.

9. On the other hand, the respondent produced mother of the appellant and her co-villager who have stated in the Court that the appellant has weak intellect who under the influence of some other person started creating problems in her own matrimonial life. The appellant gave a specific instance the night of 5th June 2015 when her husband came in a drunken state with 5-6 criminals and threatened to kill her if she did not execute the transfer deed in his favour. She has further alleged that her husband brutally assaulted her when she denied to transfer the land in his favour and he drove her out from the house. However, her own witnesses did not support her completely and, in fact, the evidence of the mother of the appellant and her co-villager has completely demolished her case that she was harassed and tortured by her husband in connection to demand of 2½ bighas land as dowry.

10. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda has held as under:

“9. From the evidence, it is clear that the entire land is being cultivated by petitioner's husband. It is also evident from the evidence that petitioner's mother does not rebuke or abuse to opposite party and petitioner's husband resides in the house of petitioner's mother just like a son. O.P.W.1 Most Gona Devi, who is the mother of petitioner has stated in para-1 of her affidav