SHARMA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated May 28, 2002 of the learned Family Court No. 2, Jaipur whereby the petition filed by the appellant wife against the respondent husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short `act') on the ground of cruelty was dismissed.
(2.) THE appellant wife pleaded in the petition that she was married to the respondent on May 5, 1997. THE respondent immediately after marriage started treating the appellant cruelly. He used to beat her for the demand of dowry. She was not given food. THE respondent was in the habit of coming home late in the night after consuming liquor. THE respondent demanded a scooter and sum of Rs. 10,000/- and when the demand was not met by the appellant, she was abandoned. The respondent husband submitted reply to the petition denying the allegations levelled against him. On the basis of pleadings of the parties issue relating to cruelty was framed. The appellant wife examined herself as Pw. 1 and produced Nangi (Pw. 2), Manni (Pw. 3) and Ramji Lal (Pw. 4 ). Whereas the respondent husband (Dw. 1) adduced the evidence of Gopal (Dw. 2), Ganga Ram (Dw. 3) and Naina (Dw. 4 ). Thereafter on hearing final submissions learned Family Court held that the wife failed to establish that the respondent treated her cruelly. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant wife is that from the evidence the appellant wife established that the respondent husband demanded from her Fridge, Cooler, Fan and TV. In order to appreciate this contention we proceed to scan the material on record and we notice that the appellant wife in her deposition admitted that the house of respondent did not have electric connection. Ramji Lal (Pw. 4) brother-inlaw of appellant wife also admitted that the respondent did not have electricity in his house. It also appears from the testimony of appellant wife that Panchayat was assembled and persuaded her to live with respondent husband but she refused to go with him. Manni (Pw. 3), sister of appellant, deposed that the respondent along with his friends came to the house of appellant to take her with him, but she refused to accompany him. We thus find that there is no trustworthy evidence on record to establish that the husband or any of his relative committed any cruelty with the appellant. The appellant wife from her testimony as well as from the evidence of other witnesses viz. Nangi (Pw. 2), Manni (Pw. 3) and Ramji Lal (Pw. 4) could not establish that there was any cruel treatment by the respondent with the appellant. On the contrary it appears that the appellant herself shattered the matrimonial home and therefore she can not take advantage of her own wrongs. We see no infirmity in the findings of learned Family Court. For these reasons we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. . ;