Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. The petition of the husband-appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce from the wife-respondent on the ground of cruelty, having been dismissed by the trial Court, he has challenged that verdict in this appeal. 2. Parties had got married on 21.4.1995 at Ambala (Haryana), according to Hindu rites. A female child, Khushboo Goyal, was born out of this wedlock on 6.6.1996. The case of appellant is that respondent is a hot tampered lady, and from the very beginning, she had started nagging and abusing him in the presence of his friends and relatives. Out of his three brothers, one resided at Ludhiana and the other, at Khanna. His third brother had short eye-sight and he also could not walk. The appellant was, thus, the only person who could support him and old parents. The respondent, however, had been compelling him to reside separately, from his parents. Whenever he tried to make her understand his inability to fulfill this demand, she insulted him. On 30.4.1995 also, when she put forward similar demand and he did not accede to it, she denied access to him for having sexual intercourse with her and gave a tooth bite on his left arm. In the morning, she threw utensils on his face and abused his parents. He, ultimately, called Hari Krishan Dharni of Barnala to his house so that he might make her cool down. But. she abused him also. She behaved in a furious manner, on subsequent nights also. She had consumed even William 5 tablets, and threatened the appellant that she would kill herself and implicate him in a false dowry case. She also tore off his shirt and even pressed his neck with hands. At the time of delivery of child, he got her admitted in Civil Hospital, Barnala, on 6.6.1996, with the help of an old female relation of his. Even at that time, she became furious and abused him as well as his family relations. In the presence of his friends, she also levelled a false allegation that he had illicit relations with the said female. After her discharge from the hospital, she deserted him, with her entire belongings, and started living with her parents at Panipat. She was a divorcee but this fact was kept concealed from him, at the time of their marriage. 3. After her discharge from the hospital, she deserted him, with her entire belongings, and started living with her parents at Panipat. She was a divorcee but this fact was kept concealed from him, at the time of their marriage. 3. The respondent denied all the alleged acts of cruelty attributed to her. According to her, the appellant had turned her out of the house, alongwith the female-child, just after few days of delivery, due to non-fulfilment of the demand of her-in-laws for more dowry and other articles, on the birth of the child. She also pleaded that the marriage-alliance had matured on the basis of advertisements got published by her parents, in the Tribune (newspaper) on 18.12.1994 and 3.4.1995, wherein it was clearly mentioned that she was a divorcee. 4. The trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? If so its effect? OPP 2. Relief. 5. After considering the evidence of both parties, the trial court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant had failed to prove all the alleged acts of cruelty. 6. I have heard arguments addressed by both sides and have also carefully perused the record. 7. It has not been disputed that matrimonial alliance between the parties was entered into on the basis of an advertisement given by the parents of the respondent in a newspaper. Ex.R3 is that advertisement, and a perusal thereof shows that the divorce status of the respondent had been disclosed therein. Besides, the respondent while appearing as RW1 also stated that in the advertisement, her divorcee-status was duly disclosed. Since, no suggestion to the contrary was put to her in cross-examination, the appellant cannot be heard to say that status of the respondent as a divorcee was kept concealed from him. 8. The main thrust of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that repeated demand of the respondent for separate (from her in-laws) residence, amounted to an act of mental cruelty towards the appellant whose family circumstances did not permit him to live separately from his parents. While appreciating this argument, what is material to be considered is as to whether this demand of the respondent was reasonable or not. While appreciating this argument, what is material to be considered is as to whether this demand of the respondent was reasonable or not. Undisputedly, the appellant had a joint family consisting of his father, mother, brother and parties to this lis, and the residential accommodation in the possession of these five members, consisted of just one room. By no stretch of imagination, this accommodation could be said to be sufficient for all of them. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that the demand of separate residence put forward by the respondent was reasonable, under the circumstances, and the same could not be termed as an act of cruelty towards the appellant. It appears that the appellant had himself also become alive to the reasonableness of this demand as, admittedly, he had, later on, taken a separate house. 9. Besides, we can also not be oblivious of the present day trend in the society, which, in most of the newly-wed ladies, is to have privacy in their married lives, and for that, they want to live separately from in-laws. Such a desire on their part cannot, in my view, be termed as an act of cruelty towards their husbands. In Smt. Shashi Shah V/s. Kiran Kumar Shah 1992(2) Civil Court Cases 664 (Allahabad) also, a similar view was taken, by observing that "mere pressure by a wife on the husband to live separately from the parents is not a sufficient ground for divorce or cruelty. If that is held to be so it would create a chaos in the society and so many marriages would break. Sons duty to parents is not diluted and he is bound to look after his parents but he has to do so as far as possible because he has (?) not to disturb the peace of his mind after his marriage if the wife wants to live separately from his parents. " 10. It is appellants own case that the other alleged acts of cruelty were committed by the respondent as he was earlier not agreeable to her demand for separate residence. And, once it was so, no cause for the disgruntlement of the respondent remained alive, after a separate house was taken by the appellant. The evidence on record also does not show that the respondent had ever become furious or had abused or insulted etc. And, once it was so, no cause for the disgruntlement of the respondent remained alive, after a separate house was taken by the appellant. The evidence on record also does not show that the respondent had ever become furious or had abused or insulted etc. the appellant, after they shifted to a separate house. 11. Otherwise also, in the absence of any medical evidence or independent witness, the mere oral statements of the appellant and his own father Ved Parkash (PW2) to the effect that respondent had once given a tooth bite on the left arm of the appellant would not be sufficient to prove this allegation. 12. The appellant also withheld the testimony of Hari Krishan Dharni whom he had allegedly, once called to his (appellants) house in order to cool down the respondent who was in a furious mood. This fact, too, is indicative of the untruth fulness of the case set up by the appellant. 13. The case of the appellant is that the respondent had attributed illicit relations with a lady, to him, and this, too, amounted to an act of cruelty, on her part. But, significantly, name of no such lady was disclosed by him in the divorce petition. However, during arguments the learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the said lady was Raj Rani who appeared as PW3, in evidence. I have carefully scrutinised the testimony of this witness. But, the same does not appear to be natural. According to her, it was when the respondent came back from the hospital (after delivery), after discharge, and her parents visited her, that she (respondent) inquired from the appellant, in her (of PW3) presence, as to whether he had illicit relations with her (PW3). The story, to my mind, does not appeal. It sounds just unnatural that the respondent would have asked about the illicit relations of the appellant with PW3, in latters presence. 14. The trial court had, thus, rightly dismissed the divorce petition, as the appellant had failed to prove all the acts of cruelty attributed to the respondent in the petition. The appeal shall, accordingly, stand dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.