JUDGMENT 1. - Smt. Kamlesh, the appellant, has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment and decree dated 21-7-1982) passed by the learned District Judge, Sri Ganganagar allowing the petition filed by Shri Prem Prakash (the respondent) and dissolving the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty. 2. The cases set up by she respondent in his petition filed by him on 11-5-1972 was as under: The marriage between the parties was performed according to Hindu rites about 61/2 years prior to the presentation of the petition and three sons, who were then aged about 61/2 years, 31/2 year and 11 months, were borne of the wedlock. The appellant had been short tempered and was of quarrel some nature and from the very beginning wanted the respondent to leave his parents and to start living in Gorakhpur but on appellant's not agreeing to the same she left to matrimonial home twice and went to live with her parents and brothers-in-law. The respondent brought back the appellant after persuasions and through the intervention of 'Panchayat' and on account of this the appellant became haughty and she started mis behaving with the respondent and his parents and threatened then with dire consequences stating that her brother-in law Rameshwar was a big man and her other brother-in-law Banarasi was a 'Gunda' of Punjab, With a view to keep peace in the house and taking into account the dignity of the family the respondent used to bear with the appellant. The appellant, how ever, left the matrimonial home third time and the respondent went to village Labragaga along with his parents,, Jitendra Pal and Bhagwan Das besides others and called a Panchayat and on the persuasion of the Panchayat the appellant came along with the respondent. After returning to the matrimonial home on the third occasion, the appellant become still more haughty and started abusing the respondent and misbehaving with his parents. When ever, the respondent asked the appellant to serve him food or give him water she taunted saying that he cleaned the utensils at the 'Dhaba' but could not himself take water at home. The limit was exceeded on the afternoon of 22-4-79 when the appellant slapped the respondent in presence of his mother. When ever, the respondent asked the appellant to serve him food or give him water she taunted saying that he cleaned the utensils at the 'Dhaba' but could not himself take water at home. The limit was exceeded on the afternoon of 22-4-79 when the appellant slapped the respondent in presence of his mother. Thereupon the respondent went to his shop without having food and the appellant left the matrimonial home along with two younger sons and went to the house of her brother-in-law Banarasi, in Mansa and had not returned to the matrimonial home since then. Because of the cruelty and mis-behaviour of the appellant, it was not possible for the respondent to live with the appellant and the respondent also apprehended danger of his life from the appellant and her brother-in-law. With these allegations, the respondent prayed that marriage between him and the appellant be dissolved by passing a decree of divorce. 3. The petition was contested by the appellant. In the written statement she denied that she was of quarrel some nature or had ever desired that the respondent should leave his parents and start living in Gorakhpur. She also denied that she ever abused the respondent or mis-behaved with his parents or that she left the matrimonial home without any cause and without the permission of the respondent. She pleaded that the respondent used to mal-treat her and had turned her out of the matrimonial home, after giving beatings to her. She also denial that the respondent had ever gone to fetch him from his village or had called and Panchayat. She pleaded that she being Indian house wife always respected the respondent and his parents. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1- vk;k uko isfV'kuj dzwj o funZ;h LoHkko dh gS vkSj bl dkj.k isfV'kuj rykd dh fMdzh ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 4. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing their learned Counsel, the learned trial court did not believe the case of the respondent about the appellants mis-behaviour with the respondent or his parents or about threats having been given by her to him. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing their learned Counsel, the learned trial court did not believe the case of the respondent about the appellants mis-behaviour with the respondent or his parents or about threats having been given by her to him. The case set up in the statement of the respondent that the appellant had abused him and the persons who had accompanied him to village Lehargaga was also disbelieved by the learned trial court, who also did not believe the statement of the respondent that the appellant used to taunt him as and when he asked her to serve food. The learned trial court, how ever, observed that the appellant had failed to prove that she used to go to live with her parents as the respondent used to turn her out of the matrimonial home and held that she used to her parents house without the permission of the respondent and that since the parties belong to ordinary middle class families and in such families the wives going to her parents house without the permission of the husband is not looked upon favourably, the appellant can be said to have treated the respondent with mental cruelty. Consequently, the petition filed by the respondent was allowed and marriage between him and the appellant was dissolved by the learned trial court by passing the impugned decree under Clause (ia) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has come up in appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. M L. Garg, the learned Counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record of the case. Since the respondent did not appear in spite of service, I did not have the advantage of hearing any one his behalf. 6. Mr. Garg, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has assailed the findings of the learned trial court in regard to the appellant's having left the matrimonial home on some occasions without the permission of the respondent and about the entitlement of the respondent to obtain the decree on such a ground. 7. As noted above, the case set up by the respondent in his pleadings was that the appellant was a short tempered woman and was of quarrel some nature and use to mis-behave with him and his parents and used to go away to her parents house without his permission. 7. As noted above, the case set up by the respondent in his pleadings was that the appellant was a short tempered woman and was of quarrel some nature and use to mis-behave with him and his parents and used to go away to her parents house without his permission. The case set up in the written statement of the how ever, was that she used to go to her parents house as the respondent used to give her beatings and had turned her out of the matrimonial home. The learned trial court has disbelieved the evidence regarding misbehaviour of the appellant towards the respondent and/or his parents. Ordinarily a woman having children would not Rave the matrimonial home. The best witnesses about the real cause of trouble between the parties were the parents of the respondent, who admittedly resided with him. The other persons who could speak about it was the appellant and the respondent. The respondent tried to improve his case in his statement by saying that when he was slapped, his parents were present where as the case set up in the pleadings was that the appellant had slapped the respondent in presence of his mother. He also tried to improve his case in his statement by saying that the appellant had abused his parents besides Bhagwan Das and Jitendra Pal and others who had accompanied him at the time of the Panchayat and the statement did not find corroboration in the statements of Bhagwan Das and Jitendra Pal, the only two witnesses examined by him, and no such case was pleaded in the petition. No explanation is coming forward as to why the respondent real cause of trouble between the parties and because of their non-production an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. Taking into consideration all these facts I am of view that the learned trial court heard in preferring the statement of the respondent to the statement of the appellant and holding that the appellant used to leave the matrimonial home without any cause and without the permission of the respondent. There was no evidence to show that in the families to which the parties belong the act of the wife going to her parents house without the permission of the husband is looked upon so unfavourably as to amount to the matrimonial offence of cruelty. There was no evidence to show that in the families to which the parties belong the act of the wife going to her parents house without the permission of the husband is looked upon so unfavourably as to amount to the matrimonial offence of cruelty. Not a word had been said by the respondent about the effect on his mind on this point and the case which has been rightly dis-believed and which bad been set up in the statement as well as in the pleadings was that the respondent was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty due to mis behaviour of the appellant who was of quarrel some and cruel nature and issue was also framed in this regard. The findings of the learned trial court, therefore, cannot be upheld. 8. In be result, I accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and dismiss the petition filed by the respondent with costs. Sines the respondent has not come forward to contest the appeal, there will be no order as to costs of this appeal.Appeal accepted. *******