http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1059 of 2003

PETITIONER: Deb Narayan Halder                                       

RESPONDENT: Vs. Smt. Anushree Halder                                     

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/08/2003

BENCH: N. SANTOSH HEGDE & B. P.  SINGH.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4047 of 2002)

B.P. SINGH, J.

       Leave granted.

       The appellant herein is the husband of the respondent.  He has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order  of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in CRR No. 973  of 2001 dated 26.11.2001 whereby the High Court while  allowing the Revision Petition preferred by the respondent  directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month  by way of maintenance to the respondent and also to pay  costs of Rs.2000/-.  While doing so it set aside the order of  the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sealdah dated  15.12.2000 passed on the application filed by the respondent  under Section 125 Cr. P.C., in so far as the learned  Magistrate refused the prayer of the respondent for grant of  maintenance to her.  The learned Magistrate, however, had  directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month  for the maintenance of his son who was residing with the  respondent.   

       It is not in dispute that the appellant and the  respondent got married on 24th February, 1985.  A son was  born to them on 14th January, 1987.  They continued to live  together for many years at different places around the city of  Calcutta.  On 11th March, 1997, the respondent left her  matrimonial home along with her son and came to reside  with her parents in Calcutta. According to her, she was  tortured over the years by the appellant and ultimately on  11th March, 1997, the appellant forced her to leave her  matrimonial home and threatened her with dire  consequences if she did not do so.  For fear of her life and  the life of her son she was compelled to leave the  matrimonial home on that day.  Only 4 days later, on 15th  March, 1997, she filed an application under Section 125  Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her son.

       In her application the respondent alleged that within  15 days of the marriage the appellant started torturing her  both mentally and physically on account of the fact that the  appellant was not satisfied with the meagre dowry brought  by her and also on account of the fact that her appearance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

appeared to the appellant to be ugly.  According to the  respondent, the appellant is quarrelsome by nature and he  had the habit of causing annoyance and disturbances to her  for petty reasons.  He did not give her the respect due to a  wife and treated her like a maid servant.  She tolerated the  cruel treatment meted out to her for many years but  ultimately when she was threatened on 11th March, 1997 by  her husband, she had no option but to leave her matrimonial  home out of fear.  She was thereafter forced to live with her  parents.  She further stated that her husband was a bank  employee drawing a salary of about eight to ten thousand  rupees per month while she had no source of income.  She,  therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.1500 each by way of  maintenance for herself and for her son, and also claimed  costs.

       In reply, the appellant stated that he had not  demanded any dowry at the time of marriage nor was any  dowry given.  Some gifts were no doubt given to him as well  as his wife which were in the custody of his wife.  He did  not torture her nor did he ever misbehave with her for the  reason that she had brought a meagre dowry or that she was  not good looking or for any other reason.  However, since  May, 1996 his mother-in-law as well as his wife started  insisting that he should shift his residence to Calcutta.  They  picked up a quarrel with him on this issue and in the process  they even abused him.  The brother of the respondent and  some others who had come to his house assaulted him,  which compelled the appellant to lodge a report with the  police.  After lodging of the report the behaviour of his wife  and mother-in-law became worse,  so much so that the  respondent had mixed some poisonous substance in his  drinking water after consuming which the appellant fell ill.   He had lodged a General Diary Entry No.207/97 at the local  police station.  He denied the allegations made in the  application and stated that on 11th February, 1997, the  respondent had gone away with her mother along with her  son and came back only on 16th February, 1997.  They were  still insisting on the appellant shifting to Calcutta and on his  refusal to do so he was assaulted for which he had lodged a  complaint at the local police station.  On 11th March, 1997,  the respondent with her son left on her own after their son  completed his school examination on that day.  She left the  home without his consent and during his absence.  She did  so on her own without any justifiable cause and only to  compel him to shift his residence to Calcutta.  He was still  willing to live with her.   

       Before the learned Magistrate the respondent  examined three witnesses  namely, herself  PW-1, her  mother as PW-2 and a bank employee PW-3.  On the other  hand, apart from examining himself as OP W-1, the  appellant examined eight other witnesses to prove that he  had never treated the respondent with cruelty, and also to  prove the complaints lodged with the police and some  letters.

       The learned Magistrate after examining the evidence  on record came to record the following findings :-

1.      There is no evidence to prove that the appellant  ever demanded dowry from the parents of the respondent  before marriage or even after marriage.  Even PW-1 did not  state that he had ever demanded dowry but only stated that  he was not happy with the gifts given.  Even her mother,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

PW-2 had to admit that the appellant never demanded dowry  but added that he expected dowry.  The case, therefore, set  up by the respondent that on account of meagre dowry the  respondent was being harassed was not true.  There was not  an iota of evidence of the fact that the appellant had at any  stage even after his marriage demanded any specific article  which was not given to him as a result of which he had  started torturing his wife.  No letter was produced to prove  that the respondent ever wrote to anyone in the course of  twelve years complaining about the ill treatment given by  the appellant.   

2.      Though in the complaint the respondent alleged  that the appellant started torturing her within 15 days of their  marriage, according to PW-2, the mother of the respondent,  she came to know about the ill treatment of his daughter 5 to  6 years after the marriage.  On the other hand in her  complaint to the police Ex. 1, PW â\200\2231 stated that she told her  parents about her being tortured by the appellant 8 years  after the marriage.  All this shows that the allegations made  by the respondent about her ill treatment at the hands of the  appellant was not true.

3.      Though the evidence disclosed that the parties  lived at different places around Calcutta during the period of  twelve years after marriage, no witness was examined by the  respondent to prove that she had been subjected to torture  and cruelty at the hands of the appellant.

4.      As regards the second reason namely, the ugly  appearance of the respondent, though such an allegation was  made in the complaint, in the course of her deposition the  respondent did not utter one word in support of the said  allegation.  Even in the police report lodged by her,  there is  no allegation that she was being ill treated because of her  ugly appearance.

5.      There   is no evidence to suggest that in view of  their strained relationship any effort was made by the  parents or other relatives to settle their dispute and to effect  a conciliation.  It appeared that the father had no say in the  matter, and he was not even examined as a witness to  support the case of the respondent.  

6.      Though the respondent asserted that she had  made several complaints to the police regarding her ill  treatment by the appellant no such report was proved.  The  only report proved, Ex. 1 was lodged after the respondent  had left the matrimonial home.

7.      Even the testimony of the respondent proves  that they regularly visited hill stations and other places of  interest on holiday trips, sometimes accompanied by the  relatives of the respondent.  She also admitted that the  respondent while talking to others used to give credit to the  respondent for the good performance of their son in his  studies. She also admitted that she completed her B.A. after  marriage while living with the appellant.  These facts  disclosed a normal marital relationship and the allegations of  torture and harassment did not appear to be true.  

In view of these findings the learned Magistrate came  to conclusion that the respondent had left her matrimonial  home on her own and that she was not compelled by the  appellant to leave her matrimonial home, nor had he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

threatened the respondent with dire consequences if she did  not leave his house.  There was no ground for the respondent  to apprehend that if she lived with the appellant her life  would be in danger and that she will be subjected to torture  or cruelty.  In sum and substance she had no justifiable  reason to desert the appellant.  The fact that the application  for grant of maintenance was filed within four days of her  leaving her matrimonial home without any effort for  reconciliation, was also significant.  The learned Magistrate  therefore held that the respondent having left her  matrimonial home without any justifiable ground was not  entitled to the grant of maintenance.  However, since her son  was residing with her, the appellant was liable to pay  maintenance for his son.  He, therefore, ordered that the  appellant shall pay a sum of rupees 1500 per month by way  of maintenance to his son.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate the  respondent preferred a Revision Petition before the High  Court of Calcutta. A learned Judge of the High Court by his  order dated 26th November, 2001 allowed the Revision  Petition and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-  per month to the respondent also for her maintenance from  the date of filing of the maintenance case and also awarded  costs.  The judgment and order of the High Court leaves  much to be desired.    The sole virtue of the judgment  appears to be its brevity.  The learned Judge allowed the  Revision Application and set aside the order of the learned  Magistrate without even noticing the findings recorded by  the Magistrate, nor is there any discussion in the judgment  of the evidence on record.  The only relevant observation in  the judgment is the following :-   

" I have perused the evidence of P.W.1 (the  Petitioner herself) and the evidence of PW 2, her  Mother and I find that the Petitioner could prove  her case quite properly. It transpires from the said  evidence that the Petitioner had sufficient reason  for staying away from her matrimonial home as  she was subjected to torture and neglect.  On the  contrary, the evidence of the Opposite Party was a  feeble attempt to ward off the allegations made  against him and were not quite convincing.  The  evidence of O.P.W. No. 2 who went to make  payment pursuant to the directions of O.P.W. No.  1 does not also appear to be quite convincing.  The  evidence of O.P.W. No. 3 in whose house the  Opposite Party has been residing was the Father of  his friend further appears to have been tuned to  suit the case of the Opposite Party.  So, also the  evidence of Opposite Party No. 4.

Accordingly, I am of the view that the  finding of the learned Magistrate refusing the  prayer of the Petitioner for maintenance cannot  stand and she is entitled to an order of maintenance  as otherwise she has been able to prove her case  and the finding of the learned Magistrate that she  "has left the house of O.P. without any just ground  and has not been succeeded to establish the  apprehension of danger to her life she is not  entitled to get maintenance from the O.P." cannot

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

be accepted."

The appellant has impugned the aforesaid judgment of  the High Court before us.  We had summoned the parties to  explore the possibility of a conciliation but counsel for the  parties informed us that the respondent was not willing to  live with the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us,  and with justification, that the judgment and order of the  High Court does not disclose application of mind to the  evidence on record, or to the findings recorded by the Trial  Court, which were sought to be set aside by the impugned  judgment and order.  The finding of the High Court is as  vague as it can be and it is not possible to cull out  the  reasons which persuaded the learned Judge  to set aside the  findings recorded by the Trial Court.  We have earlier  quoted the relevant part of the judgment which justifies the  criticism of the learned counsel.  It is well settled that the  Appellate or Revisional Court while setting aside the  findings recorded by the Court below must notice those  findings, and if the Appellate or Revisional Court comes to  the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court  are untenable, record its reasons for coming to the said  conclusion. Where the findings are findings of fact it must  discuss the evidence on record which justify the reversal of  the findings recorded by the Court below.  This is  particularly so when findings recorded by the Trial Court are  sought to be set aside by an Appellate or Revisional Court.   One cannot take exception to a judgment merely on the  ground of its brevity, but if the judgment appears to be  cryptic and conclusions are reached without even referring  to the evidence on record or noticing the findings of the  Trial Court, the party aggrieved is entitled to ask for setting  aside of such a judgment.  In normal course we would have  remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh  consideration of the evidence on record, but having regard to  the nature of the dispute, we do not consider it necessary to  prolong the proceeding any further, particularly when the  evidence has been placed before us, and with the assistance  of counsel appearing for the parties we have gone through  the evidence on record.  We, therefore, proceed to consider  the evidence on record and dispose of the matter finally.   

The respondent was examined as PW-1. In her  deposition, she stated that within 15 to 20 days of the  marriage the appellant started ill treating her without any  reason and even went to the extent of slapping and kicking  her.  This was because the articles gifted to them were not to  his liking and he needed more.  He used to quarrel with her  for petty reasons and assaulted her on many occasions even  though he did not arrange for her food and clothing.  Many a  times he drove her away from his house after assaulting her  and she used to come to her father’s house for shelter.   However, her parents used to persuade her to go back to the  appellant. All this her husband did because of greed.  She  referred to the police reports that she lodged, but they were  not produced before the Court.  She admitted that the  appellant had taken an agency of Unit Trust of India in her  name and for that purpose he had a joint account with her in  the bank.

We may only notice at this stage that there is not even

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

a whisper by the respondent about the second ground  mentioned in the application namely that the appellant  disliked her on account of her ugly appearance.  She has  referred to a few incidents which resulted in her lodging  reports before the police and her treatment in a hospital, but  no evidence was produced to prove such facts nor have the  particulars been mentioned by her.  She, however, admitted   that she passed her B.A. after her marriage while she was  living with her husband.  She also admitted that she and her  husband often went to different places such as Shimla,  Nainital, Kousani etc. every two years.  Some photographs  were shown to her from which it appeared that on some  occasions her elder sister and brother-in-law accompanied  them.  She also admitted in the course of her cross- examination that her husband used to praise her before  others and give her credit for the good performance of her  son in studies.  He used to say that their son performed well  because of the care bestowed by her.  She also admitted that  she attended Yoga classes while at Dum Dum.   She also  admitted that when she was taking the B.A. examination her  husband used to accompany her to the examination center.   She     stated in her deposition that she was often assaulted  and was made to leave the matrimonial home and had to  seek shelter in the house of her parents but she has not stated  when she first informed her parents about such behaviour of  the appellant.  There is only some indication in the  complaint Ex. 1 lodged by her after she left her matrimonial  home wherein she had stated that she had told her parents  about the behaviour of the appellant about eight years after  her marriage.  According to PW-2, her mother, the  respondent had told her about such facts some 5 to 6 years  after marriage.  No letter written by the respondent to  anyone has been produced to prove that she had ever  complained to anyone about her ill treatment.  In substance  there is no evidence of contemporaneous nature to  substantiate the allegations regarding ill treatment of the  respondent.  The only complaint which has been brought on  record is the General Diary Entry Ex. 1 recorded on 12th  March, 1997,  that is,  after she left her matrimonial home.  

PW-2, the mother of the respondent deposed in  support of the application.  She also stated that her son-in- law,     namely the appellant, was not satisfied with the items  gifted at the time of marriage since these were not to his  liking and that is why he tortured her daughter who had told  her about such incidents.  She, however, admitted that it was  only 5 or 6 years after the marriage that she came to know  that her daughter was being tortured.  It appears rather  surprising that if such occurrences took place at regular  intervals, and started within 15 days of the marriage, the  mother of the respondent would have come to know about it  5 or 6 years after the marriage.  However, in the General  Diary Entry got recorded by PW-1 she had stated that she  told her mother about such occurrences eight years after  their marriage.  There is nothing in the evidence of PW-2 to  support the case that the appellant ever demanded dowry.   On the other hand PW-2 admitted that the appellant never  demanded any dowry even after marriage, but added that  though he never made any demand it was in his mind.  From  the evidence on record it appears that the gifts given at the  time of marriage were the usual gifts which are given on  such occasions such as bed, almirah, dressing table, watch,  tape recorder and ornaments for the bride.  There is no  evidence whatsoever on record to suggest that before the  marriage, at the stage of negotiations, any demand was made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

or any particular amount or thing was asked for by the  appellant.

On the other hand the appellant has examined himself  as OPW â\200\2231 and denied all the allegations made against him.   He asserted that he had never demanded any dowry at the  time of marriage or thereafter.  In fact his relatives and  friends knew that he was in principle against the dowry  system.   There was, therefore, no question of his torturing  his wife for not bringing sufficient dowry or for not being  happy with the gifts brought by her.  He asserted that he  took good care of his wife and even after marriage he  permitted her to continue her studies and she obtained her  B.A. degree after marriage.  He had a joint account with her  which she could operate and he had secured an agency of  Unit Trust of India for her so that it could keep her engaged.   On the contrary, he stated that it was in the year 1996 that  some untoward incident took place and that was because his  mother-in-law as well as the respondent insisted that he  should shift his residence to Calcutta.  About such incident  he lodged  a report at the police station.  He further stated  that on 11.2.1997 the parents of respondent had come to his  house and asked him to live in their house or to take a rented  house near their house in Calcutta.  After some argument  they went away.  Again on 16th February, 1997, they came  and threatened him that they will take away their daughter  and grandson.  An incident took place on that day also,  details of which have been disclosed by him.  He also stated,  as was stated by PW-1, that after marriage they frequently  visited many places of interest to them.   On the first  marriage anniversary he gifted a Guitar to his wife.  In the  year 1986 they went together to Varanasi, Lucknow,  Allahabad.  In 1988 they went to Shillong, Guahati, Kamrup  etc. and in 1990 they went to Nainital, in 1993 to  Panchmarhi, Patni, Jabalpur etc.  They had gone to Shimla,  Kulu, Manali in 1995.  Some photographs were produced  which were taken when he and his wife had visited such  places.  The appellant also examined witnesses to prove that  he and his wife enjoyed cordial relationship and this fact  was known to relatives and family friends.  He examined  witnesses to prove that while they were together there was  no disturbance in their family life and their relationship was  cordial.  The witnesses also support his case that even after  the respondent left his house he had sent his friends to her  with money for her necessary expenses.  OPW-2, is a family  friend.  He deposed that he had attended the function when  the appellant and respondent got married.  He also stated  that he did not find any disturbance in their family life but  he came to know about it in mid 1997.  He had once gone to  pay cash to the respondent but the respondent did not accept  it.  OPW-3, is a landlady of the appellant.  According  to her  the appellant took care of his wife and son and did not  torture her even though the respondent was not very  obedient.

Surprisingly, to this witness a suggestion was made  by the cross â\200\223examining counsel that the appellant was in  love with her daughter-in-law and that is why he used to go  to her house.  This was of course stoutly denied by OPW-3.   This fact has been noticed by the learned Magistrate but  counsel for the respondent in the course of his argument  before the Magistrate did not pursue this line any further and  stated that the respondent had no grievance about the  character of the appellant.  We are surprised that counsel for  the respondent put such a question to the witness when such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

was not the complaint in the application under Section 125  Cr. P.C. nor had the respondent as PW-1 or her mother as  PW-2 stated anything to the effect that the appellant had an  affair with any other lady.  Without there being any basis in  the pleadings, or even in the evidence examined by the  applicant, the learned Magistrate should not have permitted  such a question to be put to the witness, particularly when it  reflected not only on the character of the appellant but also  on another lady who was not a party to the proceeding.  In  our view, learned Magistrate was remiss in permitting such a  question to be put to the witness and in recording the answer  given by the witness.  He should not have permitted such  matters to go on record.  This however, discloses the attitude  of the respondent and the extent to which she could go to  malign the appellant and tarnish his image.

OPW-4, is a childhood friend of the appellant and was  present when the negotiation for the marriage took place.   According to him, there was no demand for dowry or any  particular article.  After the marriage he used to visit the  house of the appellant and he found that their relationship  was very good.  He had also gone two times to the house of  the respondent after she left her matrimonial home at the  behest of the appellant to give some money to her but she  did not accept it.  OPW â\200\2236 stated that he was known to the  parties and he had once gone to the house of the father of the  respondent to hand over a letter and some cash and books  etc., but the respondent did not accept them.  This witness  also stated that money orders were sent by the appellant to  the respondent.

From the evidence on record we are satisfied that the  findings recorded by the learned Magistrate were fully  justified as they were based on the evidence on record and  appear to us to be reasonable.  In her application the  respondent had given two reasons for her ill treatment by the  appellant namely his greed for dowry and that she was not  good looking.  So far the second reason is concerned, in the  course of her deposition, the respondent has not said a word  about it.  So far as the first reason is concerned, on a careful  scrutiny of the evidence on record, we have also come to the  conclusion that no dowry was ever demanded either before  the marriage or after the marriage.  Even PW-2, the mother  of the respondent had to admit that the appellant had never  demanded any dowry or gift.  Of course she added that all  this was in his mind.  We are, therefore, satisfied that the  Trial Court properly appreciated the evidence on record  while recording the finding that there was never any demand  for dowry by the appellant.   There was, therefore, no reason  for him to ill-treat his wife for this reason.  We, therefore,  find that both the reasons given in the application for her ill  treatment are non-existent.  

We have also perused the evidence on record with a  view to ascertain whether for any other reason the  respondent was ill treated by the appellant.  We have found  from the evidence on record that the behaviour of the  appellant has been throughout normal.  It is admitted by the  parties that they frequently went during vacations to visit  different places.  On some occasions they were even  accompanied by the relatives of the respondent.  The  appellant permitted the respondent to continue her studies  even after her marriage and that is how she secured her B.A.  degree after marriage.  He also arranged an agency of the  UTI to keep her engaged and also opened a joint account in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

a bank which she could operate.  All these facts go to  indicate that for several years after their marriage they  enjoyed normal marital relationship.  In fact, there is  evidence to show that the appellant used to praise his wife in  the presence of others by complimenting her and giving her  credit for the good performance of their son in his studies.   This even the respondent has admitted in the course of her  deposition.  Apart from these we find it difficult to believe  that if the appellant started torturing the respondent within  15 days of the marriage, the respondent would not have  reported this matter at least to her mother.  According to her  mother, she came to know about her ill treatment 5 to 6  years after marriage. According to the respondent in her  complaint Ex. 1 she had mentioned about such happenings  to her mother about eight years after her marriage. While  there is reference to reports lodged by the respondent to the  police regarding torture by the appellant, not one such report  has been brought on record which may have been lodged  before the respondent left her matrimonial home.  Even  relevant particulars are not disclosed.  The only police report  brought on record is one lodged after the respondent left her  matrimonial home.  We do not attach much importance to  this report.  There is no contemporaneous document in the  form of letters which may have been written by the  respondent to her friends or relatives mentioning about her  being subjected to torture or harassment by the appellant.   The respondent being an educated lady, it is difficult to  believe that she would not have written letters to her friends  and relatives during the twelve years that she lived with the  appellant as husband and wife.  Apart from her mother, the  respondent has produced no evidence of prove that she was  tortured and harassed by the appellant. The learned  Magistrate also noticed that though they lived at different  places around Calcutta during the period of twelve years  after their marriage, not one witness was examined by the  respondent to prove that the appellant treated the respondent  with cruelty.  On the other hand, some witnesses have been  examined by the appellant to prove that they lived a normal  life and there was no question of the respondent being  tortured by the appellant for any reason whatsoever.  Even  the other facts which we have found support the case of the  appellant that he had not treated the respondent with cruelty  for any reason whatsoever.  Learned counsel for the  respondent laid great emphasis on the observation of the  Magistrate that the appellant being a bank employee leaving  for his work in the morning and returning late in the evening  hardly had any time to ill treat the respondent.  No doubt,  there is such an observation in the order of the Magistrate,  but that is not the basis of his findings.  Too much emphasis  on such a stray observation in the order is not justified.

We therefore hold that the High Court was not  justified in setting aside the findings recorded by the learned  Judicial Magistrate.  We have reached this conclusion after  appreciating the evidence on record since there is no  discussion of the evidence in the judgment of the High  Court.  Counsel for the respondent posed before us a  question as a part of his submission as to why the respondent  should leave her matrimonial home without any reason. In  cases where there is a dispute between husband and wife it is  very difficult to unravel the true reason for the dispute.   After separation when the relationship turns sour, all sorts of  allegations and counter allegations are made against each  other.  Evidence of contemporaneous nature therefore plays  an important role in such cases as it may reveals the thinking

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

and attitude of the parties towards each other at the relevant  time.  Such evidence is usually found in the form of letters  written by the parties to each other or to their friends and  relatives or recorded in any other document of  contemporaneous nature.  If really the respondent was  subjected to cruelty and harassment in the manner alleged by  her, we have no doubt she would have written about such  treatment to her friends and relatives with whom she may  have corresponded.  The reports allegedly made by her to  the police may have thrown some light on this aspect of the  matter. Such evidence is completely absent in this case.  It  appears to us that the parties lived happily for many years  after the marriage till about the year 1996, whereafter there  was some misunderstanding which ultimately resulted in  their separation.  Why this happened, it is difficult to  fathom, but the evidence on record does not convince us that  the respondent was subjected to torture and  harassment by  the appellant, and certainly not for the reasons alleged by  her.  The Court is not permitted to conjecture and surmise.   It must base its findings on the evidence produced before it  by the parties.  The enquiry by the Court is restricted to the  evidence on record and the case pleaded by the parties.  It is  not permissible to the Court to conjecture and surmise and  make out a third case not pleaded by the parties only to  answer the query such as the one posed to us.

In the result this appeal is allowed and the impugned  judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.   

During the pendency of the proceeding before this  Court it was contended by the respondent that the appellant  had not paid the amount which was payable by way of  maintenance to the son.  We had directed the appellant to  pay up the arrears of maintenance and according to the  appellant the amount has been paid.  The respondent,  however, has raised some dispute about the amount payable  and according to her some amount is still due.  We do not  wish to express any opinion on this dispute and leave it to  the parties to take appropriate proceeding before the  appropriate forum, if so advised.