JUDGMENT K.L. Issrani, J. 1. This is an appeal under .Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the judgment and decree dated 16.6.1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gadarwara (district Narsinghpur) in Civil Suit No. 14-A of 1983 granting divorce under Section 13 of the Act to the respondent wife. 2. The parties were married in the year 1978 in village Deori tehsil Gadarwara, district Narsinghpur, according to Hindu rites of marriage. A petition was filed by the wife respondent under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. The case of the respondent is that after marriage, the appellant heavily drunk filthily abused the respondent and her parents on account of dowry. She was beaten by the appellant. Not only that, the appellant alleged that she (the respondent wife) is not chaste. She was confined in her room Her brother Sumersingh came to take her away. At that time also the appellant took out a pistol and alleged that she (respondent wife) is unchaste and she will be killed by him if she returns back again. The appellant asked the brother of the respondent to take her away immediately. She should not return back otherwise as she will lose her life or her cars and nose will be cut down by the appellant. The appellant drew her away from the house. She was thus debarred from matrimonial rights for about eight years. The appellant did not care to feed her or take her back to his house. The respondent, therefore, had to file a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 4. The appellant admitted the marriage but denied all other allegations of the respondent. He also submitted that at the time of Gouna, ornaments and clothes worth Rs. 25,000/- were given by the appellant. Then only she was permitted to go with the appellant, which he did but she was not sent back. A notice to that effect was also given by the appellant but the respondent gave false reply to it. 5. The trial Court, after assessing the evidence led by the parties, has held the appellant guilty of cruelty. It also held that the appellant used to threaten the respondent with dire consequences of life. The respondent's allegation of calling her unchaste by the appellant was also held to be proved. 5. The trial Court, after assessing the evidence led by the parties, has held the appellant guilty of cruelty. It also held that the appellant used to threaten the respondent with dire consequences of life. The respondent's allegation of calling her unchaste by the appellant was also held to be proved. The trial Court further held that inspite of the appellant being able to maintain the respondent, he neglected and failed to do so. The trial Court held that the respondent is not able to maintain herself. The petition of the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was, therefore, allowed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the-appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. The submissions of the appellant are that the respondent lived with him only for a day. No opportunity was given to him to cross examine the respondent. His two applications : one under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for return of the property and the second under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. for annulment of marriage on account of non-meetings of the parties were wrongly rejected. The trial Court's appreciation of the-evidence is wrong. The counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions and supported the findings of the trial Court. 7. So far as the submission of the appellant that he was not permitted to cross-examine the respondent is concerned, it is wrong. The respondent was ordered to be examined on commission. She was examined on commission. A date for that also was fixed by the Court of the Commissioner but the appellant himself chose not to attend it. Therefore, his allegation-that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the respondent is wrong. No such application was also filed before the lower Court to give him opportunity for cross-examining the respondent. The order of .examining the respondent on commission was passed in his presence and with his consent. Even on 11.1.1988, when the statement of the respondent was sought to be read as an evidence, the appellant did not choose to file any reply and the Court ordered that the statement of the respondent recorded on commission be read as evidence. Even this order was not challenged by the appellant. The aforesaid two applications were filed by the appellant on 13.4.1988 much after the evidence of the respondent was over. The case was fixed for reply and arguments. Even this order was not challenged by the appellant. The aforesaid two applications were filed by the appellant on 13.4.1988 much after the evidence of the respondent was over. The case was fixed for reply and arguments. After the reply and arguments, the Court on 16.6.1988, in a detailed order had rejected these applications on . the ground that-Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act are not attracted in this case and that no evidence was led to prove the allegations regarding Rs. 25.000/-, ornaments and clothes. The applications were, therefore, rejected on 16.6.1988. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the order dated 16.6.1988 passed by the trial Court is incorrect. The lower Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the aforesaid applications. 8. So far as appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is concerned. it is to be noted that the fact remains that the respondent wife was not cross-examined by the appellant. In such a case, the trial Court is not wrong in saying that her version is to be believed. In any case, in corroboration, the respondent has examined her brother Nepal Singh. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent lived with her husband only for a day and that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record also seems to be not correct The fact remains that the version of the wife respondent remained uncross-' examined. In any case, the respondent half in her support examined P.W 2 Nepal Singh, P.W. 3 Sumer Singh, her brothers and P.W. 4 Moolchand, an independent witness, who had accompanied the P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to the house of the appellant to bring back the respondent Krishnabai after marriage who also talk of indecent behaviour of appellant and allegations against Krishnabai and her parents. He states that the appellant Om Prakash unfolded the Sari and also took out ornaments on the person of Krishnabai and took out pistol. In any way they rescued themselves and had to leave the place. Nothing has been shown as to why this independent witness is telling against the appellant. No enmity of the appellant with this witness has been shown. On the contrary, the appellant has not produced on record the alleged notice said to have been given by him. In any way they rescued themselves and had to leave the place. Nothing has been shown as to why this independent witness is telling against the appellant. No enmity of the appellant with this witness has been shown. On the contrary, the appellant has not produced on record the alleged notice said to have been given by him. He has also not given any explanation for the respondent not to do so. He further admits that he has not cared to maintain the respondent Krishnabai for the last 8 years because of there being no Gouna The appellant states that for bringing back the respondent he had sent one Nai who has not been examined in this case, though he alleges that Krishnabai had sent news to take her away. The appellant has not put on record the list of ornaments worth Rs. 25-30,000/- or so, as alleged by him, though he admits that the same is with his uncle. He has also not examined the said uncle. He admits that the whole dispute is about the ornaments. The other witness examined by him is Radhelal (D.W. 2), who admits in his cross-examination that he was not in the Barat at the time of marriage. He also admits that the appellant did not go to bring back Krishnabai. The reason given by him is that unless five steps {Panch phere) were not-taken. According to the custom, the appellant cannot so to his in-law's house. The another witness Rachhapal Singh- (D.W. 3) says that he does not remember the date and time when Radhelal (D.W 2) and Makrandsingh had been to the house of the respondent for taking her to the house of the appellant. Yet the appellant has examined Jaswant Singh (D W 4),-who claims to be relative of both the parties and claims that on the next date of marriage, the respondent had taken full ornaments to her father's house He admits that the witness Radhelal is his father-in-law. Radhelal is also the father-in-law of Makrandsingh in relation. Radhelal and Makrandsingh both were co-accused in a murder case. He witnesses recording a list of ornaments' According to him, the list was prepared, when the respondent left for her father's house but this witness does not remember the date and month of this incidence. Radhelal is also the father-in-law of Makrandsingh in relation. Radhelal and Makrandsingh both were co-accused in a murder case. He witnesses recording a list of ornaments' According to him, the list was prepared, when the respondent left for her father's house but this witness does not remember the date and month of this incidence. He also says that he does not remember as to on which date Makrandsingh and Radhelal were sent by the appellant to bring back the respondent. But he admits it as a fact that the appellant never went to brine back the respondent. 10. With this evidence on record, I do not find any justification to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial Court. No perversity in the findings has also been pointed out. The facts that the allegation of unchastity was put against the respondent by the appellant and that she has been deserted, are itself sufficient grounds to hold that the appellant bad-reason to claim for divorce. The threatenings and the conduct of the appellant and the proof on record go to suggest that there was reasonable apprehension on the mind of the respondent to choose to live separate and claim divorce. The appeal, therefore, has no substance and is-dismissed with costs. The appellant is liable to pay Rs. 250/- as counsel's fee and also the costs, if any, incurred by the respondent.