JUDGEMENT P. K. Palli, J.:- This is wifes appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Una, whereby her petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stands declined. 2. The admitted position is that the parties were married as back as 1973 and they have three daughters out of the wedlock, quite grown up with ages 19, 17 and 15 years respectively when the decision was made in the year 1994 and now two years to each one can further be added to their respective ages. 2. A divorce was sought on the twin ground of desertion and cruelty. It was pleaded that after the birth of the daughters, the respondent-husband started doubting her character and used to give beatings regularly. It is also stated that in this position her living with the husband became impossible. The appellant was not even matriculate at the time of her marriage and the husband too had not even passed out the middle standard examination. The appellant-wife in the interest of their married life and children, thought of improving her educational qualifications and consequently passed matriculation, Prabhakar and then L.T. from a private institute at Jallundhar, and according to her the expenses for this were made available by her father. As no job was available in the State of Himachal Pradesh, she sought employment in a school at Abohar, in the year 1989. It is her case that ever since the year 1984 she has been consistently visiting the husband but he refused to have sexual relation with her and thus had withdrawn from her society. The children are said to have been turned out in the year 1992 and ever since then they are living with their mother that is the appellant. 3. In reply, the case of the respondent is that the educational expenses were borne by him and not by the father of the wife. She, of course, went to Jallundhar to improve her educational qualifications. The children all this time have been living with him and they were taken away by the wife in the year 1992. According to the husband, he has not withdrawn from the society of the petitioner nor ever, treated her with cruelty and never doubted her character nor such type of allegations were ever made by him against her. 4. The children all this time have been living with him and they were taken away by the wife in the year 1992. According to the husband, he has not withdrawn from the society of the petitioner nor ever, treated her with cruelty and never doubted her character nor such type of allegations were ever made by him against her. 4. The petition was tried by the learned Court on these twin grounds and the burden of proof lay on the appellant-wife. The learned trial Court held both these issues against the appellant-wife and preceded to non-suit her as she had failed to prove both these assertions. 5. While assailing the judgment passed by the learned Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the very fact that the husband has refused to cohabit with the wife and that he had turned out even the daughters, prove this fact that he has deserted her and, the marriage stands broken. 6. We have been taken through the evidance placed on record in this respect. The statement of the wife recorded as PW-1, does not even remotely, makes out any case of desertion on the part of the husband. Regarding non-cohabitation, she has not said even a word in that respect and thus no -case of desertion stands made out. In our view, if we read the statement then an impression is created that the fault lay with the and it is she who appears to have deserted the husband, may be on account of the change in her status after. the wedding. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. Though the wife has been living away from the husband since 1984, the three daughters have been living with their father and in case he was beating. the daughters, also, then they would not have stayed with him. The daughters are quite grown up and in young age they would have even resisted any maltreatment meted out to their mother by their father. The learned Counsel is thus not correct in her submission that desertion is proved on the record on the part of the husband. 7. Coming to the second point, which arises in this case in respect of cruelty,. that too carries no force. We have gone through the petition filed by the wife. The learned Counsel is thus not correct in her submission that desertion is proved on the record on the part of the husband. 7. Coming to the second point, which arises in this case in respect of cruelty,. that too carries no force. We have gone through the petition filed by the wife. There are no pleadings, least any proof in respect of beating and other allegations which have been made against the husband. No instances have been given by the wife in the petition nor in her statement she has given any detail of any such incident. The two letters which the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, heavily relies upon, do not advance the case of the wife in this respect. These letters were neither referred to in the pleadings nor were relied upon. It is for the first time, in the letter Ex. PA that the daughter of appellant writes to her that the father beats all the three daughters and she is feeling lonely in her absence. In the second letter Ex. PB, it is said that when she asked her father to give the fees for the purpose of the school, he started beating her. These letters are Ex. PA, dated 6-1-1992 and Ex. PB which does not bear any date, but on the postage stamp there is indication of the date which is 10-12-1991. The divorce petition was filed in June, 1992, it appears that the wife was contemplating to file the instant petition and there was no difficulty for her to get such sort of letters to establish the ground of cruelty. In case the husband was maltreating these daughters, they should have written number of such , letters from 1984 to 1992. The respondent-husband has denied these allegations and the burden of proof lay heavily on the appellant-wife. The wife has made a bald allegation that the husband started doubting her character. No particulars in this respect have been placed on record and she has not stated anything regarding this in her statement, One daughter Kumari Seema has been produced as PW-2 to prove the letters Ex. PA and PB. She too has not advanced the case of the appellant-wife and has given no particulars of any instance. 8. No particulars in this respect have been placed on record and she has not stated anything regarding this in her statement, One daughter Kumari Seema has been produced as PW-2 to prove the letters Ex. PA and PB. She too has not advanced the case of the appellant-wife and has given no particulars of any instance. 8. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has framed rules under the Hindu Marriage Act which have the force of law and as per Rule 5, the petition has to contain the averments which are mentioned there. Again, under Rule 6, the petitioner has to file an affidavit, which conspicuously in this case was never filed. A reading of the rules requires that where divorce is being sought on the ground of cruelty, specific acts of such cruelty have to be given. At the cost of repetition, it is to be said here that the petition totally. lacks the requirement made by these rules. The petitioner further examined her father as PW 3 and towards the close of his statement, he admitted that the daughters were brought by respondent at his house last year and from them they have been taken by their mother to Abohar, i.e. the place of her posting. The learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon case law reported as (AIR 1981 Him Pra 63), (1994) 1 SCC 337 : (AIR 1994 SC 710), (1993) 4 SCC 232, (1995) 2 SCC 7 : (AIR 1995 SC 851) and AIR 1985 Delhi 76. We have gone through these judgments. These are not even remotely attracted in the present case. These cases have to be decided on facts and circumstances of each case and in the present case, there is total lack of pleadings and proof and thus the appellant cannot be granted any relief as claimed by her. 9. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal. The judgment passed by the learned Court appears to be absolutely just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and calls for no interference by this Court in the appeal, which is ordered to be dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.