Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahar vide which petition under section 13(la), (lb) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short "the Act") has been dismissed. 2. The appellant/husband sought a decree of divorce on the pleadings that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Sikh rites and ceremonies on 6.12.1997 at Village Nadalon, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The marriage was duly consummated at village Ram Pur, and after the marriage the parties lived together as husband and wife at village Ram Pur. From the wed-lock, one son namely Paramjit Singh was born in the month of October, 1998, The case set up by the appellant/ husband was, that after few months of marriage the respondent started creating trouble in the married life, on one excuse or the other. The husband left for foreign country and came back in the month of June, 1998. The appellant started helping his brother in business at Delhi, and started residing there along with his brother. He used to come to village after 15 days in routine. The case of the appellant was that due to his financial position he was not able to keep his wife and son with him at Delhi. It was further alleged that the wife did not want to live in village and wanted to stay with him, even though he had no means. 3. Allegations were also levelled that she forced the husband to send her second brother to foreign country, though he had sent her one brother. It was also alleged that the respondent/wife refused to cook food for him, and on one occasion she tried to serve poison in the food, but refused herself to take the same. Allegations were also levelled that she maltreated the family members and insulted the appellant in the presence of his relatives and friends. 4. On the allegations referred to above divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion, on the plea that during his absence she had left the matrimonial home along with her mother in the year 2000 and did not come back thereafter. 5. In the written statement allegations were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned matrimonial court:- "1. 5. In the written statement allegations were denied. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned matrimonial court:- "1. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner on 26.02.2002, thereby entitling him to a decree of divorce? OPP 2. Whether the respondent is guilty of subjecting the petitioner to cruelty? If so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether the frame of the petition is defective? If so, its effect? OPR 4. Relief." 6. In support of his case the appellant appeared in the witness box as PW1 and examined Chain Singh as PW2 and Gurdeep Singh as PW3, whereas respondent/wife appeared in the witness box as RW1 and examined Joginder Singh as RW2 and Sansar Singh as RW3 and closed her evidence. 7. Issues of cruelty and desertion were taken up together. 8. The allegations were held to be vague and lacking material particulars. The evidence led by the appellant was also not believed by the learned matrimonial court. The stand of the appellant, was also rejected in view of the admission made by the appellant that during his stay in the foreign country i.e. New Zealand he had not written any letter nor had sent any money to his wife or son. Evidence of Chain Singh was disbelieved being close relation who was staying at far place, therefore, could not prove any particular incident. His statement was also general in nature. It was proved on record, that FIR was got registered against the appellant and his family members on account of ill-treatment and demand of dowry. 9. It is not disputed by the parties that the appellant/husband and his family members stand convicted by the court, though appeal against the conviction is pending. The allegation that the husband had sent the brother of the wife abroad, was not believed. Plea of appellant that he had spent money from his pocket to send brother of the respondent wife to foreign country was controverted on the assertion that he was in foreign country in 1994 i.e. much prior to the marriage. 10. The learned matrimonial court also observed that material witnesses were not produced by the appellant in support of his case. 11. 10. The learned matrimonial court also observed that material witnesses were not produced by the appellant in support of his case. 11. On appreciation of evidence led by the respective parties, the matrimonial court recorded a finding that the respondent/wife had not deserted the appellant, but was turned out of the matrimonial home by the appellant and his family. The learned matrimonial court also held that the allegation with regard to stray incident was out of misunderstanding between the husband and wife, which did not constitute cruelty. The learned court held that the registration of the case in which the appellant stands convicted, shows that it was the appellant who had maltreated the respondent/wife. The allegation that poison was mixed in the food was also disbelieved. Learned matrimonial court held that neither the desertion nor the cruelty was proved. The petition was accordingly dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that findings recorded by the learned matrimonial court are liable to be reversed as the material evidence has been overlooked. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Ex.PB i.e. the FIR registered by the appellant against his wife and family members on the allegations that they had been given beating in their house. 13. This plea cannot be accepted, as it is the settled law that no evidence beyond pleadings can be looked into. Admittedly there were no pleadings by the appellant, that he was subjected to cruelty because of beating given to him at the house of wife. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends that, in any case, the appellant is entitled to divorce as the parties have been living separately for more than 8 years, so the marriage is irretrievably broken down. 15. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. As already observed above the allegations of cruelty are very vague and lack material particulars to be accepted, nor the allegations have been proved by evidence. Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Krishan Kumar v. Shankari, (2008-1)149 P.L.R.D. 22 has been pleased to lay down that institution of criminal proceedings by wife would not constitute cruelty, nor the plea of irretrievable break down of marriage by erring spouse can be entertained. 17. Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Krishan Kumar v. Shankari, (2008-1)149 P.L.R.D. 22 has been pleased to lay down that institution of criminal proceedings by wife would not constitute cruelty, nor the plea of irretrievable break down of marriage by erring spouse can be entertained. 17. This court in the case of Gurdeep Singh alias Tota Singh v. Jaspal Kaur, (2009-2)154 P.L.R. 81 has laid down that irretrievably broken down marriage is no ground for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Plea of the appellant that he is entitled to divorce because of irretrievably broken down marriage deserves to be rejected. 18. This court in the case of Amarjit Kaur v. Gursewak Singh, (2008-3)151 P.L.R. 102 has been pleased to lay down that when the wife is ready and willing to reside with the husband, but husband refuses to accept her, there can be no animus deserandi on her part to desert the husband. 19. The appellant in this case has failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife which could be a ground for the grant of divorce. No fault can, therefore, be found with the findings recorded by the learned matrimonial court. 20. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, it is ordered to be dismissed but with no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed.