PRAFULLA C.PANT,J. - (1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2008, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Matrimonial Case No. 12 of 2006 (filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955), and Misc. Case No. 39 of 2005 (filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), whereby both the petitions moved by the appellant (wife), were dismissed. In this appeal the appellant has challenged only the decree passed in Matrimonial Case No. 12 of 2006.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the par­ties and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant Vimla got married to respondent Yashpal on 23.11.1989, in accordance with Hindu rites, in Durgapur, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. After her marriage, appellant started living with her husband Yashpal (respondent) in his ancestral house in Tigari, Manakwala, Tehsil Nagina, District Bijnor (U.P.). After sometime the respond­ent (husband) got a job as a teacher in Saraswati Sishu Mandir, Dhampur. He started living in Dhampur on a rental ac­commodation with his wife Vimla (appel­lant). Two daughters namely Meenu and Nidhi were born out of the wedlock. It is alleged by the petitioner (appellant) in her divorce petition that after her marriage with the respondent she came to know that the respondent had two children namely Monika and Gaurav, through his prede­ceased wife. It is pleaded by her (petitioner/appellant) that respondent after some years of marriage, started treating the pe­titioner with cruelty. He used to drink with his friends who used to tease the petitioner, in his presence. On protesting, the re­spondent asked the petitioner to do what he says. It is further pleaded that on 06.11.2005, respondent got beaten the petitioner, with the help of his relatives and ousted her from the matrimonial home. As such, divorce petition (Matrimo­nial Case No. 12 of 2006) was filed by the wife (appellant/petitioner) on the ground of cruelty and desertion. We do not want to mention the facts relating to the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., as the appellant has not chal­lenged that part of the impugned order, in this appeal.
(3.) THE respondent contested the pe­tition and filed his written statement. He did not deny having married to the appel­lant/petitioner, nor did he deny that two daughters were born from the wedlock. It is also not denied that the respondent had already two children through his first (pre­deceased) wife, at the time of marriage with the appellant. However, rest of the allegations are dented. It is stated in the written statement that the petitioner/appellant had herself left the house of the respondent. It is further stated by him that he never treated the petitioner with cru­elty. Rather, it is alleged that the petitioner has left the respondent's house with one Madan Singh Rawat, landlord of the house in which the parties used to live.;