JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal is filed against the judgement and decree rendered by the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant-wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. Marriage between the parties took place on 10.12.1990. The appellant-wife filed a divorce petition on 8.5.1995 alleging inter alia that the respondent- husband was addicted to bad vices and be caused beatings to her and turned her out of the matrimonial home in the last week of December, 1991. The appellant-wife again joined with the intervention of the respectables but she was again illtreated and asked to bring money from her parents which she was not able to bring. Finally, she was turned out of the matrimonial home in April, 1992. The appellant-wife made efforts for resuming co-habitation but did not succeed. The respondent-husband contested the petition. It was stated that the appellant-wife was living with the parents of her own accord and though the respondent-husband was willing to keep her, she was not willing to join co-habitation. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record held that the ground of cruelty and desertion were not proved observing that the appellant-wife did not make any complaint to the police, no efforts were made by her for resuming co-habitation. The appellant-wife wanted to re- marry and the wifes father had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent-husband when he went to bring the appellant-wife, false claim by the respondent-husband that he was paying Rs. 1000/- per month to the appellant-wife was of no consequence. It was further held that the respondent-husband was not proved to have deserted the appellant-wife. 3. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat, who, after finding that there was no possibility of compromise sent the matter back to the High Court for its decision on merits. 4. It has been contended in the grounds of appeal that the version of the appellant-wife that she was turned out of the matrimonial home after illtreatment, had been wrongly rejected and that the respondent-husband was also proved to have deserted the appellant-wife by neglecting her and by forcing her to live separately. The learned counsel for the respondent- husband as supported the judgement of the trial Court and referred to paras 14, 16, 23 and 24 of the judgement. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent- husband as supported the judgement of the trial Court and referred to paras 14, 16, 23 and 24 of the judgement. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record, I am not able to agree with the view taken by th trial Court. The version of the appellant-wife that she was turned out of the matrimonial home immediately after the marriage and that the respondent-husband neglected her and did not allow her to resume co-habitation, could not be brushed aside. The respondent-husbands claim of paying Rs. 1000/- as maintenance to the appellant-wife has been rightly rejected by the trial Court in para 22 of the judgement. The appellant-wife had alleged that the respondent-husband had not good habits and had harassed her and in this view of the matter, if she was forced to live separately and if her father demaned from the respondent- husband a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to test his bonafides it did not mean that the appellant-wife was not willing to live with the respondent-husband. After perusing the material on record, I am of the view that the appellant-wife is entitled to divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and decree for divorce is granted. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.