RAM LAL Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE pleas raised in this appeal are concluded by concurrent findings of fact. The findings of fact arrived at by the Trial Court as also the first Appellate Court are alleged to be not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, or being based upon the error of law or substantial error of procedure. After going through the whole record, we have come to the conclusion that the judgment is not based on unsatisfactory or insufficient evidence and the mere possibility, of the second Appellate Court coming to a different view does not justify the disturbance of the findings of fact in this appeal.

(2.) IN Paras Nath v. Mohani Dasi, AIR 1959 SC 1204 it was held that the High Court, on second appeal, cannot go into the question of fact, however, erroneous the findings of fact recorded by the Courts of fact may be. It was held :

(3.) IT may not be out of place to mention that serious efforts were made by the Court for reconciliation between the parties and at one stage the appellant- husband agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the respondent for getting mutual divorce in terms of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the 'act') but on the adjourned date he withdrew from the offer and expressed his inability to make the payment of the aforesaid amount. It is, therefore, proved that the husband himself is responsible for the withdrawal of the society from the respondent and cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23 of the Act.