JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 5th December, 1986 passed by the IV Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in C.S. No. 88A/95 dismissing the petition filed by the appellant/wife for grant of a decree of divorce against the husband on" the alleged ground of cruelty. 2. The parties belong to Sonkar community. They were married on 18.2.1992. In the divorce petition pleading cruelty on several grounds, inter alia, it was stated that under the influence of liquor the respondent/husband and his relations Leelabai Raju, Sitaram and Seema beat the wife on 23.3.1995 and attacked her with weapons like sword and knife. It is alleged that the husband also tried to pour kerosene oil on her. Somehow she could escape and rush to the nearby telephone booth. She also reported the matter to police station specially set up for offences against women at Bilaspur. 3. The wife entered the witness box as PW1 and in her deposition stated that the husband and his relations started making demand of Rs. 50,000/- from her and physically assaulted her. It is also stated that her mother and sister as also brother- in-law went to Bilaspur where a Panchayat was called. There also the husband and his relations refused to settle the matter amicably and tried to assault them. A police report of the incident was also made. She has examined her mother Raj kumari Bai (PW 2) who corroborated the version of the wife that on demand of a sum of Rs. 50,000/-the latter was assaulted. 4. The husband entered the witness box as a solitary witness and spoke few words. He admitted that on small trivial issues they used to quarrel. He denied, however, that he ever assaulted or treated her with cruelty. In cross-examination, he admitted mat there had been a quarrel between the wife and the mother-in-law. He admitted that he had received a bed in dowry. 5. On the abovestated of pleadings and testimony of witnesses, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to hold that the wife has suffered any cruelty at the hands of the husband. He admitted that he had received a bed in dowry. 5. On the abovestated of pleadings and testimony of witnesses, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to hold that the wife has suffered any cruelty at the hands of the husband. The learned trial Judge gave much importance to the fact that the wife has not fully corroborated the version of the acts of cruelty in her deposition as had been pleaded by her in the divorce petition. According to the trial Judge, there is variance in the pleadings and proof. 6. In this appeal, notice was sent to the respondent-husband, but he refused to accept the notice. In order to make attempts for reconciliation, on 20.4.1998 this Court again issued a notice to the husband to remain personally present in this Court on 20.6.1998. The husband again refused to accept the said notice and has failed to appear. His indifferent attitude indicates that he is not at all interested in re-union with the wife. 7. It cannot be disputed that the complete version regarding acts of cruelty as pleaded in the divorce petition could not be narrated by the wife in full in her deposition. In the deposition of both husband and wife it is, however, admitted that they and their relations had bitterly quarrelled. In considering the deposition of witnesses coming from very lower strata of society and who are not very highly educated, a very consistent, clear and picturous version of the incidents cannot be expected. Giving a reasonable margin to their version, it is, however, amply proved that the wife was physically assaulted by the husband and his relations. The husband has adopted an indifferent attitude. He did not seriously oppose the divorce petition and despite repeated notices, he failed to appear and contest the present appeal. The wife and the learned Counsel appearing on her behalf both said before me that re-union of the spouse is now an impossibility because at the instance of the wife there are criminal cases instituted against the husband and his relations which are pending. The wife also expressed before me that there is serious apprehension of danger to her life and limbs if she is made or forced to live with him. The wife also expressed before me that there is serious apprehension of danger to her life and limbs if she is made or forced to live with him. The above facts and circumstances clearly show that the cruel treatment suffered by the wife in the house of the husband was of a sufficiently grave nature. The marriage, therefore, deserves to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty. 8. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 5.12.1996 passed by the Court below is set aside. The petition of the wife for decree of divorce is allowed. A decree of divorce be drawn up accordingly. In the circumstances, however, I make no order as to costs of this appeal.