Judgment S.N.Jha, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and order of the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas, dated 21.8.98 in Cr. Appeal No. 171 of 1996 upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner in a case under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. While for the former offence he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, for the latter he has been sentenced to six monthss rigorous imprisonment. 2. Mr. Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, submitted that the complaint was filed after delay of two years. The submission does not impress me. According to me, the veracity of the prosecution version in a case under Section 498-A of the Penal Code cannot be doubted merely on the ground of delay. It would be unreasonable to expect a wife to rush to the police immediately after being subjected to the acts of cruelty with a complaint. Even in a case where she is banished from the matrimonial home, it would be natural to expect her to wait for some time so that there may be rapproachment with the husband because filing of criminal case against the husband is likely to result in permanent severance of matrimonial relationship. Therefore, the fact that in the present case, the opposite party filed complaint after about two years would not create doubt about the veracity of the complaint. 3. Counsel then contended that there is no direct evidence on the point of assault so as to justify convict on under Section 498-A. He stated that as per the complaint there was no co-abitation during the intervening period of two years when the complaint was filed. I am afraid, this submission too is misconceived. Apart from the fact that in the present case, there is evidence of assault and, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has also been convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Penal Code, where offence is committed in the Sasural there would be little chance of independent witness on the point of assault. Moreover, from reading of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, it does not appear that physical assaults is an essential ingredient of the offence in all cases. Moreover, from reading of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, it does not appear that physical assaults is an essential ingredient of the offence in all cases. As a proposition of law, where a married woman, is driven out of the matrimonial home as a result of the acts committed by her husband or his relative, it cannot be said that unless physical assault is proved, the offence of cruelty under Section 498-A is not made out. 4. Counsel Pointed out that the complainants case of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the Penal Code was not proved. He accordingly contended that the offence of bigamy being necessary part of the prosecution case against the petitioner, and the said charge having failed, he should have been acquitted of the charge of cruelty under Section 498-A as well. It is true that the complainant had alleged that the petitioner had contracted second marriage which is part of the prosecution case has not been found to be proved. However, this was not the ground on which the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498 A rested. Therefore, the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted of charge does not necessarily mean that he should have been acquitted of the charge of cruelty as well as from the evidence on record it appears that after the only child born of the marriage after three years died, the complainant failed to give birth to another child which led to the petitioner committing acts of cruelty and torture believing that she had become barren. He even allegedly married a second wife. Although this part of the prosecution case has not been believed, it appears natural to me that sometime after death of the first child the petitioner started giving torture to the complainant. 5. The complainant examined six witnesses, three of whom including herself were on fact. They stated about the assault and the resultant (sic) of the complainant. Believing that evidence the Trial Court convicted the petitioner which has been upheld by the Appellate Court below. Both the courts below having concurrently believed the prosecutions. I do not think it is a fit case in which this Court should interfere in the matter in revision. 6. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed.