( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-9-2001 passed by Vth Additional District judge, Bilaspurin Civil Suit No. 117-A/2000 whereby dismissing the suit for grant of divorce. ( 2 ) APPELLANT was married to respondent on 6-2-1997 according to Hindu Rites and out of their wedlock one female child namely vyshali was both on 30- 12-1997. At present, respondent along with her daughter is residing in her parental home at Akola. ( 3 ) APPELLANT had a joint family, to escape living in joint family respondent started creating pressure on the appellant by various means and to achieve her goal she started using abusive language to her inlaws as well as her husband, very often she used to remove streak of vermilion put over the hair-parting, break her bangles, beat family members and children, break the goods and chattals and if refrained she used to threat appellant and her in-laws to implicate them in a false case. She started alleging her husband that he had illicit relations with other woman. She also started demanding money for repaying the loan taken by her parents. She left her matrimonial home along with her baby on 6-10-1998 and did not return back to her matrimonial home, therefore, appellant filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1 ) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT refuted all the allegations and counteract that since inception she was being treated with cruelty by her husband, in-laws and other relatives of her husband for demand of dowry. To fulfil the demand although whenever she visited her matrimonial home, on return she brought Rs. 25,000. 00 from her parents to appease her husband and in-laws yet continual cruelty on her remained. When she was pregnant, she was pushed from stairs as a result of that she fell down and received injuries. Twice, to kill her attempts were made to set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil. She was not provided proper meals and was forced to eat stale food. In February, 1998 her husband beat her and her voice was allowed to hear by her father on telephone to coerce him to fulfil the demand of dowry. All these factors compelled her to take shelter in her parental home. She was not provided proper meals and was forced to eat stale food. In February, 1998 her husband beat her and her voice was allowed to hear by her father on telephone to coerce him to fulfil the demand of dowry. All these factors compelled her to take shelter in her parental home. Appellant not only harassed her by these means, but to tease her filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rites and when she appeared, got the suit dismissed and also filed a suit for return of property that bears Case No. 104-A/2000 which is pending. ( 5 ) LEARNED trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record held that appellant failed to establish the cruelty caused by respondent to him and her in-laws whereas respondent succeeded in proving the allegations of cruelty caused to her by appellant and his family members, therefore, vide impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for divorce. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT in this appeal on final hearing remained absent, therefore, was preceded ex parte. Appellant was heard, record of lower Court perused. ( 7 ) TO prove mental and physical cruelty caused by respondent to appellant his parents, and relatives, appellant examined himself as (P. W. 1) produced other witnesses chandralal (P. W. 2) Ashwani Kumar (P. W. 3) and Mohanlal Parwani (P. W. 4 ). All of them have given omnibus statement that after marriage respondent was not cooking meals, threatening to implicate in a false case, throwing utensils, beating children and abusing appellant, in-laws and other family members and demanding money for repaying the loan taken by her father. Not a single specific instance has been put-forth by the witnesses. ( 8 ) IN rebuttal and to prove her own case respondent examined herself as (NAW No. 1) adduced evidence of Narayan Das (NAW no. 2) and one independent witness Brijlal ahuja (NAW No. 3 ). Smt. Neeta (NAW No. 1)deposed that after marriage she was residing in her matrimonial house, where she alone was forced to wash clothes, utensils, stitching clothes, cooking meals and clean the house. On the demand of dowry, and on the instigation of family members her husband very often used to beat her. Her husband's brother namely Harish at one time poured kerosene oil on her and attempted to set her on fire. On the demand of dowry, and on the instigation of family members her husband very often used to beat her. Her husband's brother namely Harish at one time poured kerosene oil on her and attempted to set her on fire. She only visited thrice to her parental home and every time she brought Rs. 25,000/- to meet the demand of her in laws. Her husband tele phoned to her father demanded dowry and threatened to kill the respondent. On 7-10-1998, her father and mother along with Brij lal Ahuja, came to the house of appellant. On seeing them appellant drove away her from his house and was reluctant to keep. Therefore, she was taken back to her parental home. ( 9 ) NARAYAN Das, (NAW No. 2) the father of the respondent has deposed that her daughter came to Akola thrice and every time she narrated the incident of cruelty, on demand of dowry. Each time he sent Rs. 25,000/- towards the demand through her to her-in-laws. At one occasion he received telephonic call from the appellant, on telephone respondent talked to him, at that time she was weeping and told that she has been beaten. Appellant on telephone demanded rs. 25,000/- and also warned him. He came to Bilaspur, contacted Brijlal Ahuja and accompanied with him, came to the house of the appellant. Appellant asked him to take back her daughter and refused to keep her. He saw the respondent who had injuries. From there, they went to the house of Brijlal ahuja, and thereafter went to Akola. ( 10 ) BRIJLAL Ahuja (NAW No. 3) deposed that on 7-10-1998, Jethanand one of his relatives accompanied with Narayan Das came to his house. They narrated the entire incident. Therefore, he accompanied with them, went to the house of the appellant. They saw the deplorable condition of respondent. Appellant's father asked them to take back the respondent. They tried to conciliate the matter, but failed and therefore, the respondent was taken back to Akola by her parents. ( 11 ) RESPONDENT witnesses have described instance in clear words and from the evidence of all the witnesses it appears that because of oppression caused to respondent, her father and mother came to Bilaspur and accompanied with Brijlal Ahuja tried to solve the problem, but the appellant and his family members were adamant to drive away her from their house. ( 12 ) FROM preponderance of probabilities inference can be drawn to arrive at any conclusion. Respondent came to Bilaspur miles away from her parental house to have her matrimonial life. She had not lodged any report against the appellant or his relatives. Although in conciliation proceeding she denied to go with appellant alleging that he beats her and keeps her hungry but in her statement she on oath agrees to live with her husband on assurance that he will not beat and keep her properly. Brijlal Ahuja aged 54 years, who came to resolve the dispute had been besmirched by the appellant without there being any pleading by putting suggestion in his cross-examination that he had illicit relation with respondent. Appellant filed petition under Section 9 of the hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rites and was ready to keep respondent with her, even in divorce proceeding he agrees to keep respondent as his wife with him. Appellant who filed an application for restitution of conjugal rites and thereafter without that being disposed of on merit withdrew it. ( 13 ) APPELLANT's willingness to keep respondent with him and lack of specific evidence on cruelty and form aforesaid various other factors made it probable that respondent never caused any annoyance or cruelty to appellant and his family whereas the willingness of respondent on some assurance and evidence adduced by her to establish cruelty by appellant and is family members, causing harassment and causing stigma on her chastity made it probable that appellant treated her with cruelty to coerce her to fulfil the demand. ( 14 ) APPELLANT relying on Romesh chander v. Savitri, reported in 1995 (2) SCC 7 : (AIR 1995 SC 851 ). contended that appellant and respondent are separate since 1998, therefore, there is no chance of the marriage being retrieved, therefore, a decree of divorce is necessary to be passed. The facts of the said case and the given one are different. Here in this case appellant was ready to keep the respondent as his wife in conciliation proceedings and respondent too on some assurance was willing to live with appellant and his family members. The facts of the said case and the given one are different. Here in this case appellant was ready to keep the respondent as his wife in conciliation proceedings and respondent too on some assurance was willing to live with appellant and his family members. Only a short term of around seven years has passed, a minor child is also there out of their wedlock, therefore, neither the marriage is dead, nor it can be said that there is no chance of its being retrieved. Therefore, the contention has no force and is, therefore, repelled. ( 15 ) IN my opinion, the impugned findings, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court do not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or impropriety and do not call for any interference. ( 16 ) THE appeal is dismissed. ( 17 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and nature of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs regarding this appeal. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .