Judgment N.P. Gupta, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned Judgment , and record of the learned trial Court, as was ordered to be requisitioned vide order dated 06.07.2005, and received. 2. By the impugned decree, the learned trial Court has allowed the divorce petition, filed by the respondent-husband, on the ground of cruelty. The case of the husband, as disclosed in the divorce petition is, that the parties were married according to the Hindu rites on 17.04.1993. The father of the husband is employee in the Railways, the appellant used to make demands for money, day in and day out, and used to quarrel, many a times she even did not provide food to the husband, or the children, and always used to threaten, to involve in a false case of dowry, and that she would kill the children, and foist the guilt on the husband and the family members. It is, in this sequence, that on 210.1999, she took Rs. 1,05,000/-, and executed a note in that regard in the diary of the husband, and she used to borrow money from time to time at the behest of her parents. With this, it was further alleged, that out of the marriage four children were born, being Neha, Anu, Khemraj and Vishnu Sagar. However, she used to keep the children tied by string, and attempted to throw them down from the rooftop, and used to physically beat them. Thus, it was alleged that the wife is temperamentally very cruel, and used to behave cruelty with the children also. It was also alleged that she always used to threaten that she will destroy the whole posterity. With this, it is then alleged, that on 05.04.2002 at about 12 in the noon, the wife left the matrimonial home alongwith the three children, Neha, Anu and Khemraj, on the pretext, that she is going to her parental house, which is located in the same village, and would return in the evening, but when she did not return, search was made, and it was revealed, that the garments and slippers of the children, and the wife, were lying near the well of Ramlalji, whereupon Police was informed, and the dead bodies of the three children were recovered from the well. Thereupon, a case, for the offence under Section 302, IPC, was registered against the wife, and after trial, she has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. It is then alleged, that at the time, when the wife killed three children, she was carrying pregnancy, and delivered a child after six months, and that she is in confinement in the jail. It was also alleged, that when the wife was in custody, after being bailed out, a false case of dowry was lodged against the husband, and his family members also being case No. 107/2002, wherein a final negative report has been given. Inter alia on these facts, it was claimed that the marriage of the parties be dissolved. 3. This application was contested by filing a reply on 23.02.2004. In that reply, it was contended, that no amount was borrowed by the wifes father, nor any amount was ever demanded. The allegation about not providing food to the husband and children was denied. It was contended that as a matter of fact, the family members of the husband are greedy of dowry, and on that count, they left the earlier married wife. It was contended that the wifes father lives in Degana and carries on business there, and, therefore, they were not aware about this conduct of the husband, and in view of the fact that husband was literate, the marriage was solemnised, but then, since then there was constant demand of dowry, and the behavior of the in-laws side was cruel. It was alleged that the business of the wifes father was closed. The allegation about giving physical beating, and tying down the children with string was denied. Then regarding incident of 05.04.2002, it was pleaded, that as a matter of fact, the husband and his family members were making a demand of Rs. 50,000/-, and on non-fulfillment thereof , they were ill-treating her, and since the parents were not in a position to meet her demands, her mental balance was disturbed. In such circumstances, it was the husband and his family members, who turned her out of matrimonial home on 05.04.2002, after giving severe physical beating, and alongwith her the children were also turned out. Thereby she lost mental equilibrium, suffered a bout of vertigo, and fell down in the well alongwith her small child, who was in her lap. In such circumstances, it was the husband and his family members, who turned her out of matrimonial home on 05.04.2002, after giving severe physical beating, and alongwith her the children were also turned out. Thereby she lost mental equilibrium, suffered a bout of vertigo, and fell down in the well alongwith her small child, who was in her lap. Seeing her so falling in the well, the other two daughters also fell in the well. Somehow she survived, but the three children died, and maliciously a prosecution for the offence under Section 302 was lodged against her, while she never killed them. It was admitted that Vishnusagar was born on 210.2002. Thus, it was contended, that it was the husband, who was cruel to her. 4. The learned trial Court framed three issues. The first related to the question of cruelty, while the second was about husbands entitlement of dissolution of marriage, and third being of relief. Thus, in substance, practically, one issue was framed being about cruelty. 5. The learned trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, found, that from the husbands evidence it is established, that the wife had always been ill-treating the husband, and his parents, and was insisting for his living separately, sued to give beating to the children, and was not providing food to them, and that on 05.04.2002, under the pretext of going to the parental house, she carried three children with her, and killed them by throwing them in the well, and she herself also jumped in the well, but somehow she survived, and after being released from custody, she lodged a false prosecution for dowry. It has also been found, that when the Judgment in criminal case was pronounced, she hurled abuses to the husband, and thereafter, threatened the husband to be killed, and to throw acid on him. Then considering the evidence of the defense, it has been considered, that even from the evidence of wife herself , it does transpire, that she has probablised her signatures on the diary, Exhibit-2, that she never disclosed about any beating having been given to her. Then considering the evidence of the defense, it has been considered, that even from the evidence of wife herself , it does transpire, that she has probablised her signatures on the diary, Exhibit-2, that she never disclosed about any beating having been given to her. It has also been considered, that from the material on record, it transpires, that when the wife was taken out of well, she was in senses, and she herself had disclosed having sustained fractures on the hand, and on being asked by the Police about the children, she disclosed to have thrown them in the well, and the children having died. It has also been considered, that the version pleaded, about her having fallen in the well cannot be believed, for the simple reason, that in that event she would had cried for help, which is not the case. Then it has been admitted by NAW. 2, that proceedings under Section 107, CrPC were initiated against him by the husband. Then the evidence of NAWs. 3 and 4 has also been considered, and ultimately, it has been concluded, that the evidence led on the side of the defense does not satisfactorily controvert the facts established by the evidence of the husband, and thus, the issue was decided against the wife. 6. I have been taken through the entire material on record, including the evidence, oral as well as documentary. It may be noticed here, that regarding the first wife. AW. 1 Jagdish has deposed in cross-examination that his first wife had left and had gone into Nata according to the decision of the Community Panchayat. Then so far the appellant is concerned, in her statement she has deposed, that the in-laws were not treating her well, and she was given beating on the pretext of dowry, and that on 05.04.2002, by being physically beaten, she alongwith her children, was turned out from matrimonial home, whereby she lost mental equilibrium. Then she has deposed, that after she was turned out she did not know, as to where she went and what happened, and it was only after four days, when she gained conscious in the hospital, that she came to know, that she was taken out from the well, and she was taken to hospital, and that her children being died. In cross-examination, she has admitted to have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of life. In cross-examination, she has admitted to have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of life. Then she was suggested various incidents of cruelty being committed by her, which of course, she has denied. However NAW. 2 has admitted, that proceedings under Section 107, CrPC, were initiated against him, by Jagdish. It was also admitted that, Mayadevi never told him about any ill-treatment meted to her, except only one incident. He has also admitted about Mayadevi having been convicted for committing death to three children. Then NAWs. 3 and 4 have been produced about the appellant having suffered injuries in the in-laws house on various occasions in the past, and about having been treated by the doctor. Suffice it to say, that all this is beyond the evidence of appellant herself . 7. Though various documents, being certified copies of the file of criminal case have been produced on record, but then, since they have not been tendered in evidence, nor have they been marked exhibits, I am not inclined to look into them. So far the Judgment is concerned, it has been admitted, that she has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of life, beyond that, what has been said in the judgement, cannot be looked into, for the present purposes. 8. Thus, even after re-appreciating the entire material on record, to say the least, I am at one, with the finding of the learned trial Court on the question of cruelty. Thus, the impugned Judgment does not require any interference. 9. The appeal thus has no force, and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.