JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - The present appeal is filed by husband Jitender wherein the judgment dated November 9, 2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul dissolving the marriage between the parties has been impugned. 2. The respondent-wife Manju filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking the dissolution of her marriage with Jitender. It was stated by her that the parties had married on May 29, 1996 at village Satnali. After the marriage they had lived as husband wife but no child was born out of the wedlock. It is further stated that she remained at village Ghasera for seven days and, thereafter, she came to her parental house at village Satnali. Subsequently, the husband took her back to village Ghasera. The husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her and they had forced her to bring more dowry from her parents. She further stated when she resisted their illegal demands, she was harassed, tortured and was given beatings. 3. It is also averred by her in the petition that her husband used to consume liquor and used to beat her mercilessly but when she resisted, then her in- laws used to instigate the husband to give her more beatings. She claimed that the conduct of the husband has caused mental and physical cruelty to her. She narrated the entire incident to her parents. Her father along with other persons of her village took a panchayat to village Ghasera to make her in-laws understand. Inspite of this when she returned back to her matrimonial home, she was again given beatings and was harassed. 4. It is the further case of the wife that 15/16 months prior to the filing of the divorce petition, the husband turned her out of the matrimonial house after giving beatings and asked him to bring Rs. 15,000/- in cash and a scooter and she was threatened that otherwise she would be killed. Another averment has been made by the wife in the petition that the husband and his family members had killed her sister on July 15, 1997 on account of insufficient dowry and a case has been registered on January 13, 1998 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Another averment has been made by the wife in the petition that the husband and his family members had killed her sister on July 15, 1997 on account of insufficient dowry and a case has been registered on January 13, 1998 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. She claims that she had been deserted about 15/16 months ago without any reasonable cause and, therefore, the present petition has been filed by her for dissolution of marriage on account of cruelty and desertion. 5. In pursuance to the notice of the aforesaid petition, the husband appeared and filed a written statement. The claim of the wife was contested. The factum of the marriage and there being no child out of the wedlock was admitted. However, the allegations with regard to cruelty, maltreatment and demand of dowry were denied. On the other hand, it was claimed by the husband that he and his family members had kept the wife properly and she was never given any beating nor was forced on bring any dowry or Rs. 15,000/- as claimed by her in the divorce petition. The husband took up a plea that Naveen wife of his brother Surender Singh had fallen into a well accidentally and died. After her death her parents along with other persons of her village had come to his village and raised a demand of Rs. two lacs. It was stated by the aforesaid persons that if the payment of Rs. two lacs was made, then no case would be registered against them. However, subsequently a false case has been registered against them. The factum of turning out of the matrimonial house was also denied and it was stated that she left the house on the pretext that there was a marriage of the daughter of her uncle. The learned trial court framed the issues and the parties led their respective evidence. 6. After the conclusion of the evidence the trial court on the basis of the record held that the wife had been subjected to cruelty and had been harassed and, therefore, vide judgment dated November 9, 2000 ordered the dissolution of the marriage between the parties. The husband is aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and has approached this court through the present appeal. 7. The husband is aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and has approached this court through the present appeal. 7. I have heard Shri Sunil Panwar, learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. 8. In my considered view, no fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. The allegations of cruelty and maltreatment have been supported by the evidence led by the wife. She has herself appeared as PW1 and supported all the averments made in the petition. PW2 is Mohan Lal who is Lambrdar of the village Satnali who has stated that wife-Manju had narrated the entire maltreatment meted to her to her father in his presence and had also disclosed with regard to the demand of Rs. 15,000/- and a scooter by her in-laws. 9. It is not disputed that the marriage between the parties were solemnised on May 29, 1996, and after the marriage the parties had hardly lived for one week with each other when they fell out. When the details with regard to maltreatment and harassment have been duly proved by the wife by bringing cogent evidence on record, then no fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge when he ordered the marriage between the parties to be dissolved. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in, the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.