JUDGMENT : M.B. Shah, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 29th April, 1982 passed by the Joint District Judge, Mehsana in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 8/81 the plaintiff has filed this appeal. 2. On 14-10-1980 the appellant had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for taking divorce from the respondent on the ground that she was treated cruelly, was driven out by the respondent from his house and was deserted since four years. It is her say in the petition that marriage between the parties took place before six years that the respondent is a habitual drunkard and after drinking he was beating her and thereby causing her mental as well as physical torture. It is her further contention that the respondent was having illicit connection with one lady named Fulaben Chhaganji Thakore. He wanted to marry her and therefore he was asking the appellant to go and reside with her father, before four years she was beaten and driven out from the house with bare clothes on her body and since then she was residing with her father. Her father had sent letters requesting the respondent to take her and keep her with him but the respondent had neglected the said letters. 3. During the pendency of the said petition, the appellant had filed an application Exh. 11 for interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act wherein she prayed that interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month be awarded and the respondent be directed to pay the cost of Rs. 300/- for the petition. 4. The learned Judge by his judgment and order dated 17-7-81 had ordered that the respondent should pay Rs. 50/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs. 300/- as expenses for the litigation. The learned Judge has also directed the respondent to deposit the arrears of maintenance before 17-8-81. 5 It is submitted that the respondent his not complied with this order. 6. The respondent had filed written statement at Exh. 14. He has denied the contentions of the appellant and it was his say that the appellant had willingly left his house and had gone to her father's house. 5 It is submitted that the respondent his not complied with this order. 6. The respondent had filed written statement at Exh. 14. He has denied the contentions of the appellant and it was his say that the appellant had willingly left his house and had gone to her father's house. On a number of occasions he had gone to the house of the appellant for asking her to come back and reside with him but she had refused contending that she was not prepared to do labour work. It is his further say that the appellant's father asked him to bring one Thakore Motising Merusing from village Dahhoda and if he brings with him the said person, the he would sent the appellant with him. Subsequently he found that Motising was not prepared to company him because the father of then appellant had abused him. He has further contended that false allegations are nude against him with regard to his character and that he was not drinking liquor. 7. After recording the necessary evidence, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent was having illicit connection with Bai Fulabea Chhagaji or that she was treated with physical and mental cruelty or that he had deserted her. He, therefore, dismissed the petition. 8. In this appeal the learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence and the learned Judge ought to have held that considering the evidence of the appellant and her father it was clear that the appellant was treated cruelly by the respondent and that she was deserted by him since four years prior to the filing of the petition. 9. From the evidence, on record it is clear that the marriage of the appellant and respondent took place in the year 1974 at village Dabhoda Taluka Kheralu. It is the say of the appellant in her deposition at Exh. 21 that she stayed with the respondent for two years. During that time the respondent was beating her after consuming liquor. He was asking her to go to her parent's house as he wanted to have second marriage. According to her allegation, the respondent was having illicit relations with one Fulaben of village Kanda, District Sabarkantha, who was coining to her house. During that time the respondent was beating her after consuming liquor. He was asking her to go to her parent's house as he wanted to have second marriage. According to her allegation, the respondent was having illicit relations with one Fulaben of village Kanda, District Sabarkantha, who was coining to her house. One day she was beaten and driven out with the only clothes which she had put on. She went to her father's house and from there her father and brother had written number of letters requesting the respondent to take her back. It is her say that the respondent was threatening her that she would be killed. In the cross-examination it was suggested to her that no criminal case for consuming liquor or for beating her was filed against the respondent. She has denied that she was not prepared to reside with the respondent because at his house she was requited to do labour work. In support of her say she had examined her father Kacharaji Becharaji at Exh. 23. It is his say that his daughter was staying with him since last five years. The respondent beat and drove her out of his house. Since then she was staying with him. It is his say that he had written three letters to the respondent to take the appellant back and for residing together. To him it was suggested that there was no medical certificate to show that the respondent beat the appellant and that there was no evidence to show that the respondent threatened to kill the appellant by burning. 10. As against this, the respondent has examined himself at Exh. 25. It is his say that in 1978 the marriage between him and the appellant took place the appellant had willingly gone to her father's house before two years, that he had gone alongwith her at her father's house and at that time he gave 20 Kgs. of wheat, on that day the appellant had stated that she would return after four days but as she failed to return, he went to the house of the appellant's father during Navratri days, at that time he was informed by his father-in-law that he should bring there his maternal uncle Motiji of Dabhoda. of wheat, on that day the appellant had stated that she would return after four days but as she failed to return, he went to the house of the appellant's father during Navratri days, at that time he was informed by his father-in-law that he should bring there his maternal uncle Motiji of Dabhoda. Motiji refused to accompany him because his father-in-law had abused him thereafter on the New Year Day he had received the Court summons and hence he had not gone at his father-in-law's house for bringing back the appellant. In the cross-examination he had denied the suggestions that he was having illicit relations with Fulaben or that he had beaten the appellant. He has admitted that no notice was given to the appellant asking her to come back and stay with him. He has admitted that he had not paid the interim maintenance but, according to him, as he was not in a position to pay the said amount, therefore he had not paid it. He has denied that before 6 to 7 years he had driven out the appellant from his house or that he was not ready to keep her with him. 11. From the evidence of this witness one thing is clear that he had not denied or had not stated anything that he was not consuming liquor. In the examination-in-chief also he had not stated anything that he was not beating the appellant. In the cross-examination he had merely denied the suggestions that he was having illicit relations with Fulaben or that he had driven away the appellant by beating her. To avoid this difficult situation the respondent had examined one Imsailbhai Daudbhai at Exh. 26. It is his say that the respondent was working at his field and that he was not consuming liquor. He took leave for four hours before two years by stating that he wanted to go with his wife for leaving her at her father's house. In the cross-examination he has admitted that the respondent was not working at his field for 24 hours but he was coming there only for 8 to 10 hours. He had not filled in any from for keeping agricultural labourer. There was no written grievance to show that he was paying Rs. 2,500/- per annum as salary. No books of account were kept by him for that. He had not filled in any from for keeping agricultural labourer. There was no written grievance to show that he was paying Rs. 2,500/- per annum as salary. No books of account were kept by him for that. It is apparent that this witness is a chance witness and to avoid the difficult situation this witness is examined by the respondent. In the written statement or in his evidence it is nowhere contended by the respondent that he was serving at the field of this witness. On the contrary in the written statement it is the say of the respondent that the appellant was not prepared to come at his house because she was required to do labour work at his house. In this view of the matter, no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of this witness. 12. The learned Judge has not relied upon the evidence of the appellant solely on the ground that no criminal complaint was filed against the respondent for beating her or no criminal case was filed for consumption of liquor. It is clear that the learned Judge has forgotton the fact that normally a Hindu wife would not file a criminal complaint against her husband for beating her. In a small village even she could not take any medical treatment. It would be to much too expect medical certificate or a criminal complaint from a Hindu wife for beating by her husband. In my view, there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the appellant and her father. Further, merely because no complaint is filed for consumption of liquor, the learned Judge ought not to have presumed that the say of the appellant was false. Even the respondent himself has not denied this say of the appellant that he was consuming liquor and thereafter beating her. Neither in the examination-in-chief nor in the cross-examination he has stated that he was not consuming liquor. Apart from this aspect of physical torture, it is also clear that since 1977 the appellant and the respondent are staying separately. The respondent had not taken any steps for keeping the appellant with him. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent has deserted the appellant for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce on 18-10-1980. The respondent had not taken any steps for keeping the appellant with him. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent has deserted the appellant for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition for divorce on 18-10-1980. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent failed to pay interim maintenance as awarded by the trial court. No doubt the appellant has failed to prove her allegation that the respondent was having illicit relations with one Fulaben. In this view of the matter, it is held that the respondent drove away the appellant in 1977 after beating her and thereafter he has deserted the appellant without reasonable cause and without her consent for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and hence the appellant is entitled to have a decree of divorce, on the ground of desertion as provided under Section 13(1)(i)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 29-4-82 passed by the Joint District Judge, Mehsana in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 8/81 is quashed and set aside. The appellant's suit in decreed and that the marriage of appellant and respondent stands dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion by the respondent. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.