Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the wife Smt. Saty- awati alias Savitri, challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.6.1996 passed by Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce. 2. The facts in brief are that on 193.1993, Chandi Prasad (husband) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against his wife Smt. Satyavvati seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. In the petition, it was alleged that the parties were married in October, 1980 and that after the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife for 8-9 years but no child was born. It was alleged that the wife was not tempered lady and used to pick up quarrels with the husband on petty matters during her stay with him and used to use filthy and insulting language and her behaviour towards him and his family members was not co-operating. It was alleged that she left the matrimonial home a number of times without intimation to the husband and her behaviour remained cruel towards him and his family members. It was alleged that on 18.6.1992, when her brother and her sister along with her husband had visited their house, she raised quarrel with him and his relatives and her relatives also supported her and they all gave beatings to him and also maltreated him and thereafter, she went to the CRPF Jawans and brought 8-9 Jawans with her and they all gave merciless beatings to him and he remained admitted in the Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib from 19.6.1992 to 25.6.1992 on account of the injuries caused to him by his wife, her relations and CRPF persons, who were under her influence. It was alleged that when he was in the hospital, his wife left the matrimonial home on the very first day, without bothering for his health and without taking care of him and she left the matrimonial home alongwith all the gold jewellery etc. It was alleged that the various efforts made by him to lodge the report with the police against his wife, her relations and CRPF Jawans proved futile and only D.D.R. No. 14 dated 28.6.1992 was re- corded in the Police Station. It was alleged that the various efforts made by him to lodge the report with the police against his wife, her relations and CRPF Jawans proved futile and only D.D.R. No. 14 dated 28.6.1992 was re- corded in the Police Station. In the written statement filed by the wife, various allegations were controverted and it was alleged that she had never maltreated him. With regard to the allegations of 18.6.1992, she denied that her brother, her sister and sisters husband had visited her in their house or that on that day they had quarreled with her husband. On the other hand, it was pleaded that in fact, on 18.6.1992 her husband after taking liquor had started giving beatings to her and when she ran out of the house, her husband followed her even outside the house and gave her beatings in the presence of persons, who had collected there, whereupon those persons while saving her gave beatings to her husband. It was alleged that the police arrived at the spot and took him to the Police Station and that being scared, she immediately left for her parents house. Other allegations levelled against her were also denied. 3. The husband filed replication. Various issues were framed. Both sides led evidence. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned Additional District Judge found that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. Resultantly, the divorce petition filed by the husband was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce in favour of the husband and against the wife. Aggrieved against the same, the wife filed the present appeal in this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 5. At the outset, it may be submitted that during the course of arguments, it was submitted before me by the learned counsel for the appellant wife that the respondent husband had failed to pay the balance amount towards the maintenance pendente lite to the appellant wife under Section 24 of the Act. 5. At the outset, it may be submitted that during the course of arguments, it was submitted before me by the learned counsel for the appellant wife that the respondent husband had failed to pay the balance amount towards the maintenance pendente lite to the appellant wife under Section 24 of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent husband submitted before me that the respondent husband was always ready and willing to pay the balance amount of maintenance to the appellant wife but the wife was not available at the given address and for that reason, the payment could not be made and that within one week the balance amount of maintenance shall be paid to the wife. The orders were reserved. During the intervening period on 11.5.2004, the respondent husband has deposited the balance maintenance amount in this court for payment to the appellant wife and as such, it could not be said that the respondent husband had failed to pay the maintenance amount to the appellant wife. Photo copy of the deposit receipt for Rs. 44,100/- has been placed on the record. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant wife submitted before me that the learned Additional District Judge had erred in law in holding that the wife had caused cruelty to the husband and on that account passing a decree for divorce in favour of the husband and against the wife. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant wife. Dr. Tarsem Lal Mattu, Senior Medical Officer, had appeared in the witness box as AW4 and had deposed that Chandi Prasad respondent was admitted in the Civil Hospital on 19.6.1992 at 4.15 p.m. and he had examined him at 9.15 p.m. on the same day and had found as many as 13 injuries on his persons (those injuries were detailed by AW4 Dr. Tarsem Lal Mattu, while appearing in the witness box). Those injuries included various diffused swellings, bruises, abrasions and scratches on various parts of the body of Chandi Prasad respondent. According to AW4 Dr. Tarsem Lal Mattu, the probable duration of those injuries was between 16 to 20 hours and thus the duration corroborated the version of Chandi Prasad respondent had he was given those injuries by his wife, her relations and CRPF personnel at the asking of his wife, on the night intervening 18/19.6.1992. According to AW4 Dr. Tarsem Lal Mattu, the probable duration of those injuries was between 16 to 20 hours and thus the duration corroborated the version of Chandi Prasad respondent had he was given those injuries by his wife, her relations and CRPF personnel at the asking of his wife, on the night intervening 18/19.6.1992. AW1 Jawinder Pal and AW2 Ganga Singh had also corroborated the version of AW3 Chandi Prasad (husband) with regard to the causing of the injuries by the wife and others on the night intervening 18/19.6.1992. Furthermore, Chandi Prasad had lodged a report with the police, which was entered in the Daily Diary Register and its copy was produced as Exhibit PX. In the said report, the entire story given by the husband in the divorce petition regarding the manner in which he was given beatings on the night intervening 18/19.6.1992 had been given. From the evidence it also stands proved on the record that Chandi Prasad remained admitted in the hospital on account of aforesaid injuries from 19.6.1992 to 25.6.1992. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly found that the aforesaid injuries were given to the husband by his wife, her relatives and by the CRPF personnel at her asking. 7. Furthermore, it is not disputed before me that the present appellant Smt. Satyawati alias Savitri (wife) had left the matrimonial home on 18.6.1992 itself and had not bothered to take care of her husband, who had sustained various injuries on various parts of his body in the occurrence, which took place before she had left the matrimenial home. She also never bothered to come back and take care of her husband, even though he re- mained admitted in the hospital from 19.6.1992 to 25.6.1992. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the incident of 18.6.1992, in which the husband was given beatings stands fully proved on the record and the ground taken by the wife wile appearing in the witness box as RW1 would not be enough to hold that no such occurrence had taken place or that it was the husband, who had given beatings to her under the influence of liquor or that it was thereafter that her husband was given beatings by the passers-by and by the CRPF people, who came there. Nothing has come on the record to show that the wife had sustained any injury at the time of occurrence. On the other hand, the injuries on the person of the husband are proved from the MLR Exhibit AW4/2 and from other evidence available on the record including the testimony of the doctor. In my opinion, after considering the entire evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly found that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty and that husband was entitled to dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. This is especially so, when the learned counsel appearing for the appellant wife failed to refer to any evidence available on the record, on the basis of which a contrary view may be taken. Accordingly, I affirm the finding of the learned Trial court on issue no. l. 8. No other point has been urged before me in this appeal. 9. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. R.M.S. Appeal dismissed