Honble SINGH, J.–This civil miscellaneous matrimonial appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2000 passed by the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur in Case No. 408/1998 whereby petition for divorce u/S. 13of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act) filed by the appellant-husband was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1000/-. (2). In brief the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant husband (for short `the husband) was married to the respondent wife (for short `the wife) on 20.11.1989 at Sangaria, District Hanumangarh as per Hindu rites. One female child was born out of their wedlock on 9.5.1991. It was averred that the first year of the marriage between the parties passed peacefully. On the wife being pregnant by six months, she was taken to Sangaria by her father for delivery. There she underwent an operation on account of some complications at the time of delivery but no information was given to her in-laws. The information of delivery was also given after 20 days. After 3-4 months when the wife returned with female child, she insisted to go back to her parents house. She was advised to go back along with child. To was advised to go back along with child. To harass the family, she usually started beating her child. On trying to make her understand, one day she left the house at about 9.00 in the night without information. She went to her friend at Bapu Nagar and from there she went to Bhankrota to the house of her cousin. On search made by the husband, she was found at Bhankrota. Then the father of the wife was called who instead of getting things settled, threatened the husband with dire consequences and took the wife to Sangaria. The efforts were made to bring the wife back as the mother of the husband was heart patient. The wife was brought back with great difficulty. On arrival, she usually expressed her anguish on petty matters. On demand she was advanced Rs. 200/- instead of demand of Rs. 500/- in view of the limited sources of income of the husband but she threw back the money on his face and retorted that the same should be used to stitch his own Coffin cloth. She again went to her parents house but she was again brought back. On demand she was advanced Rs. 200/- instead of demand of Rs. 500/- in view of the limited sources of income of the husband but she threw back the money on his face and retorted that the same should be used to stitch his own Coffin cloth. She again went to her parents house but she was again brought back. The wife started threatening by committing suicide and she misbehaved with the mother of the husband. The wife used to bolt the room from inside when the husband returned in the night at about 10 or 10.30 after taking care of his ailing father. By this, she meant that the husband should stay out or should sleep with his parents. In fact she wanted that the husband to leave his parents and live separately. (3). It was further averred that the father of the husband died on 6.6.1993 and the husband wanted to go Haridwar for his last obituary but the wife insisted him not to go. She also refused to sleep with his mother soon after the death of his father so as to console her at the moment of grief. On the death of the father of the husband, the wifes father visited the husbands the wifes father visited the husbands family but he made a publicity in the neighbourhood that after the death of the father-in-law he apprehended danger to life of his daughter and requested the neighbours to take care of her. Thereafter on 31.7.1993 the wife left the house of the husband along with her female child, ornaments and clothes. The husband came to know in the morning when he woke up and after search she could be found at the residence of his elder brothers friend. The husband wanted to bring her back but the wife insisted to go to Bhankrota at the residence of her cousin and the husband had to take her to Bhankrota and from there her father took her back to his house. It is averred that ever since then, the husband and wife are not living together. Therefore, the husband filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. (4). It is averred that ever since then, the husband and wife are not living together. Therefore, the husband filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. (4). The wife denied all the allegations made against her and alleged that the husband had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights and she appeared in the court and was ready and willing for compromise but the husband refused to keep her with him. It is also alleged that she was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/- failing which she would not allow to live with him. It was further averred that ever since the marriage, the husband and his parents complained that whatever was given in dowry was not upto their standard and status. It was asserted that she has been always ready and willing to live with the husband and she never wished to snap matrimonial ties. (5). On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- (i) Whether the wife treated the husband with cruelty as narrated in the petition? (ii) Whether the wife deserted the husband without any reasonable cause and thereby denied him all matrimonial benefits? (6). The husband examined himself as PW.1, Rakesh Singh Bhadauriya (PW. 2), Pradeep Bhatt (PW. 3), Mahaveer Singh Bhadauriya (PW. 4) and Anoop Garg (PW. 5) in his support. The wife also examined herself as DW 1, Rukmani Kanwar (DW. 2), Prathvi Singh (DW 3), Rajender Singh Solanki (DW 4) and Saroj Poonia (DW 5) in her defence. (7). The learned Family Court after completing the trial and hearing the submissions from both the sides, decided the aforesaid issues against the husband and dismissed the petition with costs vide judgment and decree dated 24.5.2000. (8). We have heard the submissions advanced before us and scanned the material on record. (9). On perusal of the evidence led by the parties, it is revealed that the marriage was solemnised between them on 20.11.1989 and a female child was born on 9.5.1991. The husband and wife are living separately ever since 21.7.1993. The husband initially filed a petition u/S. 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights but the same was withdrawn by him and the present appeal for dissolution of marriage was filed by him on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The husband and wife are living separately ever since 21.7.1993. The husband initially filed a petition u/S. 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights but the same was withdrawn by him and the present appeal for dissolution of marriage was filed by him on the ground of cruelty and desertion. On perusal of the deposition of the appellant husband, it is revealed that he has tried to state what he had narrated in his petition. Apart from her insulting and quarrel some behaviour with the husband and his family, the following instances of cruelty were mainly narrated by him: (i) At the time of delivery in May 1991, the wife had to undergo operation and her condition was serious at Sangariya where her father resided but no information was sent to the husband or his family. (ii) The wife used to beat her baby so as to harass the husband and his family after she returned from her parents after delivery. (iii) The wife went to her cousin at Bhankrota along with her child at about 9.00 PM without information and called her father and went along with him and did not return for long. (iv) The wife returned after the death of the father of the husband but she always quarreled and insulted and also threatened to commit suicide. (v) The wife finally deserted on 31.7.1993 at about 5.00 AM and then went to her parents along with her cloths and ornaments. (10). The aforesaid instances of cruelty alleged by the husband have not been corroborated in the material particulars by any of the witnesses produced by him and these witnesses have merely spoken in general that the behaviour of the wife was responsible for the rift and she wanted to live separately from in-laws as she wanted freedom and that she had deserted the husband. As against the aforesaid evidence, the wife controverted all these allegations in her statement and has deposed that twice she was turned out of the house after assaulting by her husband, his brother and mother. She had to go to her friend Saroj Poonia (DW 5) and from there to her cousin Rukmani Kanwar (DW 2) at Bhankrota and from there to Sangariya to her parents. She had to go to her friend Saroj Poonia (DW 5) and from there to her cousin Rukmani Kanwar (DW 2) at Bhankrota and from there to Sangariya to her parents. This statement of the wife stands corroborated by Saroj Poonia (DW 5) and Rukmani Kanwar (DW 2) and also by her father Prithvi Singh (DW 3). These witnesses have corroborated the fact that the respondent wife was maltreated and she was even beaten and turned out of the house. From the evidence on record, we find that the allegation of cruelty levelled are of triviable in nature and that the allegation of leaving the house twice by the wife was not without any reasonable cause as she was maltreated, assaulted and she even apprehended danger to her life. Thus, the findings on issue No. 1 and 2 pertaining to cruelty and desertion against the husband by the learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and do not suffer from any infirmity and, therefore, the appeal of the appellant husband is liable to be dismissed. (11). Consequently, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.