JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a first appeal in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, instituted by a petition under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, by the appellant. 2. The parties were married on 10-6-1974. Both are Railway servants, the appellant being a clerk in the office of the Controller of Stores, and the respondent being a Staff Nurse in N. E. Railway, Central Hospital at Gorakhpur. The petitioner was living with his parents at the time of his marriage at a place called Dharampur, which is said to be adjacent to the City of Gorakhpur. After the marriage of the parties, the respondent went to live with the petitioner at the latters parental home. According to the evidence led by the petitioner, the stay was of 5 or 6 days only, and thereafter the two went for a honey-moon on a hill station for 2 or 3 days. It has been stated by the petitioners mother P. W. 1, that after coming back from the hills the respondent went straight to her own home in the Railway quarters at Gorakhpur, and did not stay at Dharampur residence of the petitioners parents. The petitioner was posted at Lucknow at that time and was transferred to Gorakhpur in Sept., 1974. On his transfer to Gorakhpur, the petitioner did not set up home himself but went and stayed with the respondent at her Railway quarter; and it is the petitioners case that he continued to live there up to 27-4-1975. The first and the only issue of the marriage, a son, was born on 21-4-1975 and the incident that occurred on 27-4-1975 whatever it was, has led to disruption of relations between the parties, so that they have not lived together at any time thereafter. The petitioner served a notice dated 30-10-1975 through a lawyer calling upon the respondent to come and live with him and bring the child and also the ornaments and clothes presented to her by the petitioner and his relations, as also the utensils belonging to the petitioner which were in her possession, within a fortnight of the receipt of the notice. The respondents reply bears no date but from the postal stamp it appears to have been served on 4-11-1976. It is Ext. 3 on the record. The respondents reply bears no date but from the postal stamp it appears to have been served on 4-11-1976. It is Ext. 3 on the record. All the allegations made by the respondent in her written statement and the statement on oath before the Court have been stated in this reply. Unlike the petitioner, the respondent did not choose to send her reply through a lawyer, but addressed it herself directly to the petitioners lawyer. 3. Apart from the aforesaid primary facts about which there does not appear to he any dispute, the petitioner alleged that when he was transferred from Lucknow to Gorakhpur, he went to live with the respondent, on the insistence of the latters father, in the Railway Quarter No. 246C, Gorakhpur, although the petitioners parents reside at Dharampur adjacent to the city of Gorakhpur. He further - alleged that the respondent's father did not like the petitioners presence in her quarter, and on account of the conditions created by him, the petitioner had to leave the same and had to take up residence with his parents at Dharampur on 27-4-1975, and that ever since, he had been requesting the respondent to come to reside with him but she did not pay any heed. There is however, no allegation of any exchange of letters between the parties and the only documentary evidence on this point is the petitioners notice dated 30-10-1975 and its reply by the respondent. It is then said in the petition that none of the grounds for judicial separation or for decree of nullity of marriage, are available to the respondent against the petitioner and that her allegations to the contrary are false and baseless, and that she was bound to perform her marital obligations by living at Dharampur. 4. The respondent pleaded in her defence that after the marriage she had continued to live at the Dharampm house of the petitioners parents until she was turned out by them during the petitioners absence at Lucknow, after snatching away all the ornaments and costly clothes given to her by her parents and relations. 4. The respondent pleaded in her defence that after the marriage she had continued to live at the Dharampm house of the petitioners parents until she was turned out by them during the petitioners absence at Lucknow, after snatching away all the ornaments and costly clothes given to her by her parents and relations. The respondent had then pleaded that it was false to say that the petitioner was living in the Railway quarter on the insistence of her father, but did so of his own accord; and further that it was also false to say that the respondents father did not like the presence of the petitioner and it was not on that account that the petitioner left the said quarter and went to live at Dharampur at his parents house. It was alleged that the respondent is working as a Staff Nurse in the Railway Hospital at Gorakhpur and whatever salary she used to draw was taken away by the petitioner forcibly without leaving any money with her, even for her pocket expenses and he was always abusing and beating the respondent, and on her protests he beat her so severely and so cruelly as to show that he did not care for the respondents life. The reason given for this conduct of the petitioner was his habit of excessive consumption of liquor and the fact that he got out of control in the state of intoxication. It was stated that the petitioner did not agree to leave the habit in spite of repeated requests by the respondent; and further that he constantly wanted money for drinking and on her refusal the petitioner used to beat her mercilessly. The next and the crucial fact alleged is the incident of 27-4-1975. It was pleaded that although a son was born to the respondent on 21-4-1975, the petitioner did not care to spend a single paisa on the birth of the child and did not also take any care of the respondent. Rather, he treated her with cruelty endangering her life; and that on 27-4-1975, the petitioner with his mother, sister and sister-in-law, attacked the respondent in her quarter and badly assaulted her and her sister who was attending on her. Rather, he treated her with cruelty endangering her life; and that on 27-4-1975, the petitioner with his mother, sister and sister-in-law, attacked the respondent in her quarter and badly assaulted her and her sister who was attending on her. The cause of this incident was said to be the fact that the respondent refused to give money to the petitioner and on this the petitioner went to Dharampur and returned with his mother, sister and sister-in-law and tried to run away with the child but on the intervention of the neighbours he could not succeed in doing so. It is also alleged that during the said incident, the petitioners mother gave so severe a blow on the respondents chest as to cause an abscess which led to operation. It was further alleged that the petitioner also gave several blows to the respondent and threatened that they would not spare her life. 5. By his replication, the petitioner alleged that before his marriage with the respondent he was married to Smt. Rosebud in the year 1971 who died on 6-9-1972. A list of ornaments is given thereafter with the allegations that those ornaments came into the petitioners possession after Smt. Rosebuds death and he gave them to the respondent at the time of this marriage with her. It is then alleged that as the respondent was employed as Staff Nurse in the N. E. Railway Hospital, Gorakhpur, there could be no question of her living with the petitioner at Lucknow, nor did she agree to this. It was then asserted that it was wrong that the petitioners parents did not like to keep the respondent with them and that they never turned her out and never snatched her ornaments and 'costly clothing; and further that it was the respondent herself who insisted on living with her father so as to look after him in the quarter allotted to her and in consonance with her wishes he (the petitioner) permitted her to do so. With regard to the question about their residence, on the petitioners transfer from Lucknow to Gorakhpur, it is alleged in the replication that it was again on account of the old age of the respondents father and the need to look after him that he agreed, on the request of the respondent, to live in her Railway quarter, and later on, when her father did not like that he should live that way any further, he came back to live with his parents on 27-4-1975. The other allegations made in the written statement about not caring for the child and not meeting the expenses of the delivery etc., were also denied. With regard to the incident of 27-4-1975, it was stated that the petitioner, his mother, sister-in-law and sister, or any of them did not attack the respondent and that he never tried to run away with the child and his mother never gave any blow on the respondents chest: that the petitions never threatened the respondent; and that he is not aware of any operation which the respondent may have undergone. 6. The trial Court framed the following issues; namely: 1. Has the respondent illegally and without just cause withdrawn from the Society of the petitioner ? If so, its effect ? 2. Has the petitioner been guilty of legal cruelty against the respondent to a degree that it is harmful and dangerous for the respondent to live with him ? If so, its effect on the claim of the petitioner ? 3. To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled ? The learned District Judge took up the first two issues together and on a detailed appraisal of the evidence on record held the petitioner guilty- of cruelty' against the respondent to such an extent that it was harmful and dangerous for her to live with the petitioner, and that she had not illegally withdrawn from the Society of the petitioner. The petition was accordingly dismissed with costs. 7. On appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant in this Court has, in the forefront, invited my attention to the orders passed by the trial Court on 1-4-1977 rejecting the four applications moved by the petitioner; viz. The petition was accordingly dismissed with costs. 7. On appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant in this Court has, in the forefront, invited my attention to the orders passed by the trial Court on 1-4-1977 rejecting the four applications moved by the petitioner; viz. ,41D, for permission to summon a document to discredit the testimony of Mithai D. W. 3; 49 C for permission to summon a document from the Railway Hospital Gorakhpur to discredit the respondents statement about her having been turned out by the petitioners parents from their house on 22-9-1974; 53 D for permission to summon the attendance register from the Janta High School, Mirzapur for the academic year 1973-74 to discredit the testimony of D. W. 4; and 54 C praying that certain words alleged to have been left out from the statement of D. W. 3, may be added. The learned District Judge rejected all the four applications for the reasons given by him. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the reasons given by the learned District Judge are in any manner wrong, or that it is necessary in the interest of justice to give him an opportunity of leading fresh evidence. The appeal has, therefore, to be decided on the material already on record. 8. A fact which comes out in bold relief from the facts of the case narrated above, is that the respondents quarter was the parties marital home for whatever period they lived together after their marriage. The first weeks stay together at the petitioner's parental home at Dharampur did not make that place their marital home. The respondent never left that marital home. The petitioner never set up any new marital home for the parties to live together after leaving the respondents quarter on 27-4-1975. In the notice which was sent to the respondent she was required to come and live with the petitioner at his parents house at Dharampur. The parties are Christians and the respondent could very well have insisted on a separate home away from the petitioners parents. It cannot, therefore, be said that the respondent ever left the marital home or deserted the petitioner. It was the petitioner who had no place, to offer where the parties could have lived together and made it their marital home. It cannot, therefore, be said that the respondent ever left the marital home or deserted the petitioner. It was the petitioner who had no place, to offer where the parties could have lived together and made it their marital home. It has not been alleged by the petitioner that the respondent forced him out of her railway quarter. Indeed the petitioner has stated that the respondents father, who was living with the respondent did not like the petitioner staying there and accordingly he left of his own accord. It could not, therefore, be said that the petitioners wife has without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the petitioner at any time before the presentation of the petition. 9. It is, however, noticeable that in her reply to the notice, and in her written statement and even when asked in Court by me, the respondent has refused to go and live with the petitioner and the reason given by her for such refusal is not that he has no separate home of his own, but that she was treated with such cruelty as to give rise to an apprehension that it was no longer safe for her to live with the petitioner which gave her a right to judicial separation. The trial Court has, on a detailed analysis of the evidence, believed the respondents allegations. I have perused the evidence and appraised it in the light of the undisputed facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court had the benefit of watching the demeanour of the witnesses and the determination of the facts on which the parties are principally at issue in this case, namely, as to what happened on 27-4-1975 is dependent mainly on an appraisal of the oral evidence on record. Nothing has been pointed out to me which may show that the appraisal of the oral evidence by the learned District Judge is necessarily wrong. Indeed there are certain facts and circumstances which make the petitioners case unbelievable; for instance, his statement that he did not know whether the respondent had been operated upon for the abscess on 17-5-1975 about three weeks after the birth of their child, could be true only if he was utterly callous of what happened to his sons mother, and if it was untrue, it shows that the incident of 27-4-1975 did take place as alleged by the respondent. 10. 10. I, therefore, agree with the findings recorded by the trial court that the petitioner was guilty of such cruelty as to have caused an apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it was no longer safe for her to live with him. 11. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.