JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. - Appellant-husband has filed this appeal against judgment date February 2, 2001, vide which his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act) for a decree of divorce was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, facts of this case are that marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on June 28, 1991, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Lajwana Khurd, district Jind. After marriage, both husband and wife resided at Narwana. Out of this wed-lock, one made child was born on October 28, 1995, who unfortunately died on November 10, 1995. Thereafter, another male child was born on November 2, 1996. Appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act in the month of August, 1998, claiming a decree of divorce stating that from the very beginning, respondent had been disliking him. She was elder to him by two-three years and due to that, she had been dictating terms to him. She never bothered about her husband and other family members and relatives. Respondent had been stating that her marriage was solemnised under pressure. It was further averred that the respondent-wife at the instance of Balbir, elder brother of the husband, and his wife Mukesh, showed total disrespect and also misbehaved with the appellant. She did not allow the appellant to have access to her and she was in the habit of throwing utensils whenever he asked for food. All sorts of other allegations were also levelled against the respondent-wife. It was further stated that the respondent-wife had left the house in the month of January, 1997, without any rhyme or reason and she had taken away all her Stri Dhan and other valuable articles with her. By stating these facts, it was prayed that a decree of divorce be passed in favour of appellant-petitioner on the basis of cruelty and desertion as committed by the respondent-wife. 3. Upon notice, respondent put up her appearance and filed a written-statement controverting all the allegations levelled by her husband in his application. She denied that she had ever taunted or misbehaved with her husband and his other family members as alleged. She further stated that she had no special relations with Balbir except that being elder brother of her husband, she had been treating him just like elder brother. She denied that she had ever taunted or misbehaved with her husband and his other family members as alleged. She further stated that she had no special relations with Balbir except that being elder brother of her husband, she had been treating him just like elder brother. She was thrown out of the house by her husband in three clothes. She took a categoric stand that she was ready and willing to live with her husband. 4. Appellant-petitioner filed replication to the written-statement, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and reiterated the allegations as made by him in his original petition. 5. Trial Court, after noticing pleadings of both the parties, put them to trial on the following issue :- "1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce on the ground(s) of cruelty and/or desertion ? OPP" 6. Both the parties led their evidence to prove their case. Trial Court after appraisal of evidence as led by them and after hearing arguments, came to a definite conclusion that the appellant-petitioner had failed to prove anything against his wife, on the basis of which decree of divorce could be granted to him and dismissed his petition vide judgment dated February 2, 2001. 7. Shri S.K. Garg, Advocate, appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are not correct. He submitted that the Court below had failed to appreciate evidence led by the appellant- petitioner. By referring to the statements of PW1 and PW2 counsel contended that cruelty as well as desertion on the part of wife, was fully established. He prayed that appeal to be accepted and decree of divorce be granted in favour of appellant-petition. 8. After hearing arguments and appraisal of record, this Court feels that appeal is liable to be dismissed. Trial Court rightly disbelieved the statement of Ram Krishan PW2. It is apparent from the records that statement of that witness does not inspire any confidence. That witness had deposed before the Court below simply on the basis of hear-say and had failed to state that he was present when any untoward incident or quarrel took place between the parties. Deposition of this witness is general in nature. It is also clear from the records that the appellant-petitioner had made all sorts of general allegations against his wife, the respondent. Deposition of this witness is general in nature. It is also clear from the records that the appellant-petitioner had made all sorts of general allegations against his wife, the respondent. He failed to prove those allegations by leading any cogent and convincing evidence on record. He failed to produce even his parents or any other independent witness to substantiate his allegations. Opinion gathered by the trial Court, that since respondent- wife was elder in age and less educated, an attempt had been made by her husband to get rid of her by moving present petition, is perfectly justified. Appellant-petitioner also failed to prove that his wife had left his company without any reasonable cause. Respondent, after denying all allegations as levelled by her husband, made a categoric statement that she was and is ready and willing to live with the appellant as his wife. Trial Court, while appreciating evidence as led by the parties, rightly opined that essential ingredient of desertion for a continuous period of two years was not proved by the appellant-petitioner. While arriving at that conclusion, Court below noticed that even as per petitioners allegations, wife left matrimonial home in the month of January, 1997, and petition for divorce was filed on August 6, 1998. Opinion arrived at by the Court below is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. This Court feels that the appellant-petitioner has failed to make out any case on the basis of which any interference can be made in the well- reasoned judgment passed by the trial COurt. In view of the reasoning given above, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.