JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 20th December, 1991 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur, whereby the divorce petition filed by the appellant has been rejected. 2. The appellant-applicant (wife) moved the Family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her husband respondent-non-applicant for the grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It seems that the respondent non-applicant did not appear before the Family Court and ex parte proceedings were taken against him. The learned Family Court framed two issues which are : i. Whether there was cruelty on part of the non-applicant as detailed in the application for divorce; ii. Relief; The learned Judge, Family Court has found that the applicant has failed to prove the alleged cruelty and consequently he dismissed the divorce petition. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred by.the appellant-wife. 3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the record of the lower Court. 4. The applicant-appellant has alleged four-fold acts of cruelty against the non-applicant respondent. They are : (1) demand of Rs. 25,000/-; (2) false allegation of theft by the mother-in-law of the applicant and consequently beating by the husband-non-applicant; (3) attempt to burn the appellant-applicant; (4) taking of alcohol, drugs etc. by the' non-applicant husband. 5. Regarding the first act of alleged cruelty, it may be seen that in the divorce petition it has been averred that the in-laws of the applicant-appellant pressurised to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her father so that the younger brother of her husband may start a separate shop of Tyres and if it was not possible then she may press her father to get the brother of her husband employed in Dubai. But in her statement, the applicant as A.W. 1 has stated that her husband wanted to open a shop and he used to demand money from his own mother, then he expressed his desire to his wife applicant that he wanted to open a shop for which she may bring a sum of.Rs. 25,000/- from her father. A.W. 1 has also stated that her husband told her that if it is not possible to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her father, she may ask her father to arrange for sending him (non-applicant) to Dubai. 25,000/- from her father. A.W. 1 has also stated that her husband told her that if it is not possible to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her father, she may ask her father to arrange for sending him (non-applicant) to Dubai. A.W. 2 is the father of the applicant. He has stated in his statement that his daughter told him that the non-applicant wants Rs. 25,000/- for his business. Evidently the evidence produced is at variance with the pleadings. In the pleadings, it has been alleged that Rs. 25,000/- were demanded for getting a separate Tyre shop opened for the brother of the non-applicant respondent, but in the evidence A.W.1 and A.W. 2 have stated that the money was demanded by the non-applicant for his own business. Thus, the evidence is at variance with the pleadings. It is well settled in law that no amount of evidence can be looked into if it is at variance with the averments in the pleadings. On this principle of law it is evident that it can not be accepted as proved that there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- by the in-laws of the applicant for opening the shop for the younger brother of her husband. The demand of money for husband's own business has not been averred in the divorce petition. Therefore, first act of alleged cruelty can not be held to have been proved. 6. With regard to the false allegation of theft and consequent beating by the non-applicant is concerned, it may be seen from the divorce petition that the appellant has averred that the mother-in-law of the non-applicant snatched away a golden neckless from the applicant and misrepresented to the non-applicant that the neckless has been given by the applicant to her parents and on this representation relying on what has been said by his mother the non-applicant gave a beating to the applicant. But in her statement before the Family Court the applicant A.W. 1 has stated that she kept her neckless in a Almirah and went to take bath and when she came back she did not find the neckless in the Almirah. At that time her husband then-on-applicant was present in the house. He denied to have taken the neckless and on this there were some exchange of words between both of them. At that time her husband then-on-applicant was present in the house. He denied to have taken the neckless and on this there were some exchange of words between both of them. Thus, on this incident/act of cruelty there is variance between the pleadings and the evidence and again on the principle that no amount of evidence can be looked into if it is intended to prove a fact, which has not been pleaded in the application, it can not be accepted as proved that a false allegation of theft has been levelled by the mother-in-law against the applicant-appellant and consequently the beating was given by her husband non-applicant-respondent. In this manner the second incident/act of alleged cruelty does not stand proved. 7. Coming to the third act/incident of cruelty, it may be seen that in the divorce petition, it has been averred that on 13.4.89 the non-applicant poured Kerosene Oil on the applicant and an attempt was made to burn her, but she escaped by running out the house. The applicant-appellant in her statement has stated that her husband poured Kerosene Oil on himself as well as on her, but she threw away the match box. Her father A.W. 2 has stated that he was told by his daughter that the non applicant poured Kerosene Oil on himself and when he was about to burn himself his daughter snatched away the match box and threw it away. If the father of the applicant appellant is to be believed then the non- applicant had poured Kerosene Oil on himself alone and not on the appellant. From the evidence of A.W. 2 it is not established that the non-applicant respondent poured the Kerosene Oil on her, because if it had been so, she must have certainly told this fact to her father A.W. 2. But A.W. 2 has dearly stated that he was told by his daughter that her husband poured kerosene oil on himself only and not upon her. Therefore, in our opinion it is not sufficiently established and proved that the non-applicant respondent has attempted to burn the applicant-appellant. This third act of cruelty, in our opinion, has not been sufficiently proved and established. 8. The last act/incident of cruelty alleged by the applicant-appellant is that her husband i.e. non-applicant respondent takes Alcohol and he is also addicted to the drugs. This third act of cruelty, in our opinion, has not been sufficiently proved and established. 8. The last act/incident of cruelty alleged by the applicant-appellant is that her husband i.e. non-applicant respondent takes Alcohol and he is also addicted to the drugs. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the AM. 1 the applicant has stated that her husband is in the habit of taking alcohol and he is also addicted to drugs and she has stated that her husband under the influence of the alcohol quarrels with her and gives beatings. He even casts aspersions against her. She has stated that under the influence of Alcohol he poured Kerosene Oil on himself and tried to set fire, but she snatched away the match box and threw it away. 9. On the basis of the above statement of A.W. 1 the learned counsel for the appellant argued that from the evidence of the applicant-appellant it is sufficiently established that the non-applicant respondent has the habit of taking drinks and under the influence of alcohol he misbehaves with her, beat her, casts aspersions on her and it is under the influence he poured Kerosene Oil on himself and tried to set fire. He has further argued that if the husband enslaved by alcohol beats his wife, casts aspersions on her, gives various threats to her and tries to burn himself and thereby causing distress, pain and suffering in the mind of the wife then it obviously amounts to mental cruelty. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, contended that distress, suffering and pain of the mind resulting from continuous drinking by the husband transforms his individual weakness into the mental cruelty towards wife, whose broken aspirations and other circumstances of her life make matrimonial life difficult if not possible. The conduct of the husband in the opinion of the learned counsel for the appellant is so bad that wife should not be called upon to endeavour it, because his drinking creates humiliating situation for the wife and distresses her. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited Geeta v. Mohan, 1992 (I) DMC 121 (DB) to support his aforesaid argument. 11. We have considered the above argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and the ruling cited by him. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited Geeta v. Mohan, 1992 (I) DMC 121 (DB) to support his aforesaid argument. 11. We have considered the above argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and the ruling cited by him. In the authority cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the husband under the influence of alcohol ceased to be partner in the life and his depressed state of mind, sulken isolation, and the denial to wife the cherished companionship were so distressing that the matrimony had become empty shell without the substance of cohabitation. This is not the case in the matter in hand. Therefore, in our opinion, the ruling is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. A perusal of the evidence of A.W. 2 the father of the appellant would show that he has not stated that the non-applicant the husband of his daughter is always under the influence of alcohol. He has also not stated that the drinking of alcohol by the husband of his daughter is to the extent that may cause distress in the mind of his daughter. From the evidence of A.W. 2 it does not appear that the alleged drinking habit of the non-applicant respondent is accompanied by any such extremities and acts from which the cruelty may be inferred. Thus, A.W. 2 does not corroborate A.W. 1 in any manner in this regard. Had the alcoholic habits of the husband made matrimonial life difficult the wife would have certainly told the matter to her father. The silence of the father goes to show that the daughter has not found the matrimonial life to be difficult by the drinking habits of her husband. Drinking alcohol by itself is not cruelty per se as it may be a person's weakness resulting from diverse factors, but mere drinking of alcohol does not amount to matrimonial cruelty. From the statement of A.W. 2 it is evident that he was never informed by his daughter applicant that she was beaten, misbehaved or humiliated by her husband on account of his drinking habits. This goes to show that the allegation of the applicant in this regard is more imaginary than real. Had it been real she must have informed her father. 13. In our opinion, therefore, the four acts/incidents of cruelty do not stand sufficiently proved. 14. This goes to show that the allegation of the applicant in this regard is more imaginary than real. Had it been real she must have informed her father. 13. In our opinion, therefore, the four acts/incidents of cruelty do not stand sufficiently proved. 14. From the entire discussion, it is evident that no case of cruelty is made out by the applicant appellant against the respondent so as to grant divorce..In our opinion, there is no legal infirmity in the order of the learned Judge, Family Court. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal dismissed . *******