JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Appellant Rajbir alias Kala (hereinafter referred to as the husband) has filed this appeal against the decree of divorce granted by Additional District Judge, Rohtak, on the petition filed by respondent herein Smt. Mukesh (hereinafter referred to as the wife) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 1993 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No issue was born out of this wed-lock. The wife sought divorce on the ground of cruelty. It was alleged by the wife that from the very inception of the marriage, the behaviour of the husband and the members of his family was cruel towards her. It was further averred that the husband has two brothers and all the three brothers are addicted to intoxicants and drugs. Under the influence of intoxicants, the husband used to beat the wife with the help of his two brothers and mother. After six months of the marriage, she was turned out of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the matter was settled with the intervention of the respectables of the village and the wife was again sent to the matrimonial home. For some time, the wife was kept properly but thereafter, the husband and his family members again started abusing and harassing the wife saying that she was barren. It was alleged that family members of the husband hatched a conspiracy to eliminate her. When she came to know about the said fact, she had escaped from her matrimonial home in the month of April, 1997. When the matter was not settled, the divorce petition was filed by her. 3. In the written statement the husband denied all the allegations of cruelty. It was averred that neither he and his brothers are addict nor they used to beat the wife nor at any time, she was called as barren. He further denied that the wife was ever thrown out of her matrimonial home. He put a counter- version to the effect that in the month of October, 1998, brother of the wife had borrowed an amount of Rs. 60,000/- from the brother of the husband for getting their land redeemed. The said loan amount was not repaid despite demands. That fact resulted into quarrel between both the sides. He put a counter- version to the effect that in the month of October, 1998, brother of the wife had borrowed an amount of Rs. 60,000/- from the brother of the husband for getting their land redeemed. The said loan amount was not repaid despite demands. That fact resulted into quarrel between both the sides. It was further alleged that in a Panchayat, father of the wife had agreed to pay the loan amount within a month but the said amount was not paid. Thereafter, the wife was taken by her brother from the matrimonial home. At that time, she had also taken away gold and silver ornaments and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the house of the husband. It was further averred that the husband was always ready and willing to keep his wife. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed issue to the effect as to whether the husband has treated the wife with cruelty so as to entitle her for a decree of divorce. On that issue, both the parties led their respective evidence. In support of her claim, the wife examined herself as PW1 and her father Pehlad as PW2. On the other hand, the husband examined Chander as RW2 and Hazari as RW3, both residents of the village and Bijender Singh, a photographer, as RW4. He himself appeared as RW1. 5. The trial court, after appreciating evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that the wife was beaten quite often by the husband with the help of his brothers. It was also found that she was being harassed by the husband and his family members on the allegation that she was barren. In view of these findings, it was held that the husband treated the wife with cruelty and a decree of divorce was granted in favour of the wife. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the husband, Shri Ramesh Hooda, submitted that in this case, the wife has not led sufficient evidence to establish that she was treated with cruelty by the husband. He further submitted that to prove the allegations, the wife has only examined herself and her father. From their statements, the allegation of cruelty has not been established. 6. Learned counsel for the husband, Shri Ramesh Hooda, submitted that in this case, the wife has not led sufficient evidence to establish that she was treated with cruelty by the husband. He further submitted that to prove the allegations, the wife has only examined herself and her father. From their statements, the allegation of cruelty has not been established. Counsel for the husband submitted that actually the trial court has drawn adverse inference on the ground of minor contradictions in the evidence led by the husband. On the basis of those contradictions, the trial court has observed that version of the husband and his evidence are not credible. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court has not properly appreciated the statements of RW3 Hazari and RW4 Bijender, who are the independent witnesses. Thus, the finding recorded by the trial court regarding cruelty is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the husband and perusing the record of the case, I do not find any merit in this appeal. In this case, the wife had alleged that she was being beaten by the husband and his brothers under the influence of intoxication. She has alleged that not only she was beaten but she was harassed by the husband and her family members on account of the fact that she did not given birth to a child. It was alleged by the wife that just six months after the marriage, she was turned out of matrimonial home, but lateron with the intervention of the respectables of the village and on the assurance given by the husband, she again went to the matrimonial home. In spite of that, behaviour of the husband and his family members did not change. She has proved all these facts by examining herself and her father. On the other hand, the husband has examined three witnesses. He has not produced his brothers or mother in the witness box to prove that they never harassed and beaten the wife, RW2 Chander and RW3 Hazari have been examined to prove holding or a Panchayat where father of the wife had undertaken to return money and ornaments. RW4 Bijender Singh, photographer, was produced to prove that the wife was present in the matrimonial home in October, 1998, when the photograph was taken for preparing the ration card. RW4 Bijender Singh, photographer, was produced to prove that the wife was present in the matrimonial home in October, 1998, when the photograph was taken for preparing the ration card. The trial court has discussed this evidence and held that it has not been proved as to as which date the photographs were taken. Thus, in my opinion, wife has proved the allegation. She has discharged the onus of proof on her. But on the other hand, the husband has not been able to discharge his onus because these witnesses could not state any thing about the beating of the wife by the husband and his brothers and mother. Thus, the trial court, in my opinion, has rightly observed that in view of the contradictory stand taken by the husband, his statement cannot be given much credence. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the trial court. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.