BIND BASNI PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a defts appeal arising out of a suit by a wife for the dissolution of marriage. Parties are muhammadans. ( 2 ) IT is the common case of the parties that the plff. Mt. Khairunnisa, was married to the deft, about two and a half years prior to the suit, She was minor then and therefore, she stayed with her father. Her age at the time of the suit was about sixteen years. It seems that the deft. insisted that she should come to live with him. Her father desired that she should go to him after attaining majority. This appears to have sown the seeds of discord, between the parties. It was alleged by the plff. that when she was coming in a bullook-cart with her parents from her maternal grandfathers place, she was forcibly taken away by the deft. and his party. She remained there for about 20 or 22 days and daring this period she was subjected to great cruelty. She was beaten and was shut in a room. On these groands she prayed for a declaration for the dissolution of marriage. ( 3 ) THE deft, denied the cruelty and resisted the claim. ( 4 ) THE trial Court held that cruelty was not proved and dismissed the suit. In appeal learned Civil judge held that cruelty was established. He accordingly decreed the claim. ( 5 ) IT appears from the judgment o the learned Civil Judge that he was much impressed with the evidence of the plff. and believed her in entirety. It must, therefore, be taken that the plff. was assaulted by the deft. and subjected to cruelty. Her life was made miserable. ( 6 ) THE respondent has remained absent, though duly served with a notice. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, having regard to the language of Section 2 (viii) (a), Dissolution of muslim Marriages Act, 1939, it was necessary for the plff. to prove that she was "habitually ill treated". Learned counsel contends that when she lived with the deft. only for 20 or 22 days, any ill-treat, ment meted out to her cannot be said to be a "habitual ill-treatment". The word "habitual" I means by habit. When the deft. from the very start began to ill treat the plff. to prove that she was "habitually ill treated". Learned counsel contends that when she lived with the deft. only for 20 or 22 days, any ill-treat, ment meted out to her cannot be said to be a "habitual ill-treatment". The word "habitual" I means by habit. When the deft. from the very start began to ill treat the plff. and to beat her and never showed the affection of a husband towards her, it is clear that he, by his conduct, showed that his habit was one of maltreatment of his wife. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the period required for proving "habitual ill-treatment" of a wife. I am inclined to the view that if within the first twenty days of the wife, living with her husband, she is assaulted by him, shut up in a room and ill-treated in other manners, it is a case of habitual ill-treatment and the inference would not be unreasonable that the husband would not, in future, treat her with affection. ( 7 ) I see no good reason to interfere with the decree passed by the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal. .