I. S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) This appeal is by the wife who his failed to secure a decree of divorce on the solitary ground of cruelty pleaded by her against the respondent-husband. She stated in her application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act) that after the solemnisation of the marriage between the parties at Jullundur on 30th Nov., 1979, she lived with the respondent in his house at Hoshiarpur for ten days. Just after a week of the marriage, the respondent and her parents started "giving occasional beatings" to her on account of the fact that she had not brought dowry up to their expectations. In fact, they expressed their desire to have at least a television, a scooter and an amount of Rs. 10,000 from her parents. After about a month she was turned out of the house after giving her a severe heating. She started living with her parents at Jullundur for sometime but later her father with the help of few close relations successfully pleaded and prevailed upon the respondent to keep her in his house. After a few days of this reconciliation she was again ill-treated by the respondent and was "even confined in a room and was not given food for a day". A week thereafter she was again turned out of the house after a severe thrashing. On account of these facts, she claimed that the respondent-husband is guilty of such cruelty which causes reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be injurious and harmful to her health and life to live with him.
(2.) As against this, the respondent pleaded in his Written Statement that not to talk of any demand of dowry by him or his parents he had married the petitioner on 30th Nov., 1979 without any ostentatious ceremonies on the very first day he in the company of his relatives had gone to approve her as her would be spouse. He further claimed that he being the President of "Kandhi Welfare Federation" whose major object is not to give and take dowry at the time of marriages and to see the full implementation of Dowry Prohibition Act, it was beyond him to ask for any such dowry. He further divulged in this Written Statement that "the real bone of contention between the parties is that the respondent requested the petitioner to leave her service and live with the respondent at Hoshiarpur as the house- wife but the petitioner and her parents had refused to accede to the request of the respondent. The petitioner has been asking the respondent to start his business at Jullundur and live separately from his parents at Jullundur to which the petitioner did not agree." It may be mentioned here that the petitioner is employed as a teacher in K. L. Arya High School, Jullundur Cantt. whereas the respondent who after completing his double M A. and passing the Ayurvedic Rattan Course has been working as a medical practitioner at village Janauri near the town of Hoshiarpur since 1973.
(3.) The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the appellant has palpably failed to make out a case for divorce and for that a reference to her statement as P. W. 1 alone is enough to throw out the case as pleaded. Having gone through the evidence on record and, more particularly, the statement of the appellant as P. W. 1, unhesitatingly affirm the conclusion of the trial court.;