JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J.(Oral).:- This is husband’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide which petition filed by the appellant/husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) seeking a decree of divorce has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. Appellant/husband filed a petition under section 13 of the Act on the pleadings that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 1.3.1998 as per Anand Karaj ceremony and rituals at Manimajra (Union Territory), Chandigarh. The parties to the marriage lived together and cohabited at village Chhotagarh, Tehsil Naraingarh District Ambala but the behaviour of the respondent/wife towards the appellant remained very cruel and tough right from the beginning of the marriage. The appellant sought decree of divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty. 3. Pleadings with regard to the adultery read as under:- “ That after the marriage petitioner and the respondent No.1 went to Banglore and Uti etc for Honey-moon trip. When both reached Banglore, the respondent asked the petitioner that they should come back to their home immediately. The petitioner convinced the respondent that as they have come for honey-moon from such a far of place. They should stay for few days and enjoy their trip. At this, the respondent No.1 disclosed the petitioner that she did not want to marry the petitioner as she was having his all types of links including the physical links with the respondent No.2 namely Channi and wanted to marry him;. But, her parents arranged the marriage with the petitioner against her wishes. Such a discloser was made by the respondent to the petitioner in Banglore itself. Any how, the petitioner continued his trip and tried to make understand the respondent No.1 that she should forget her past life and live like a good wife in future. But she did not improve her behaviour and remained interested in respondent No.2 even after the marriage and always misbehaved with the petitioner and his parents. The respondent No.1 never stayed at the petitioner’s house i.e. the matrimonial house regularly beyond 10-15 days. When ever she was brought from her parents house, she used to say that village Chhotagarh is small village and there is no comparison between the village life and Chandigarh style of life. She used to say that she will not live in village conditions. When ever she was brought from her parents house, she used to say that village Chhotagarh is small village and there is no comparison between the village life and Chandigarh style of life. She used to say that she will not live in village conditions. b) That on 20.4.1998, her brother-in-law (Jija) Rajinder came in village Chhotagarh when neither the petitioner nor his parents being duty persons were not in their house and only the respondent was present in the house. The none was present in the house. The respondent No.1 namely Baljit Kaur left the house with Rajinder Singh in the absence of all the family members of the petitioner. Nor did she told it to the petitioner or his parents before that she will go from the house like that. The uncle and Auntis of the petitioner tried to convince her that she should not leave the house but to no effect on her. The petitioner and his parents came to know through their relative in the evening that she has gone with Rajinder Singh.” 4. Rajinder Singh brother-in-law of the respondent/wife was not impleaded as party though it was alleged that she was living in adultery with Rajinder Singh. 5. It is also not in dispute that no evidence was led to prove, that after the solemnization of marriage, the respondent/wife had voluntary sexual intercourse with Channi, respondent No.2. 6. Otherwise also, allegation of adultery against respondent No.2 was based on the admission of the respondent/wife. She denied the allegations levelled by the the petitioner in this regard. No evidence other than self serving statement was led in proof of these allegations by the appellant. 7. Learned matrimonial court held that no wife would make such an admission, as alleged in the petition to spoil her life by making such stark revelation to her husband. The view taken cannot be doubted, unless the wife was interested in getting divorce from the appellant. Story put up by the appellant is not worthy of belief. The findings of the learned matrimonial court on this score are affirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the judgment and decree passed by the learned matrimonial court cannot be sustained, inasmuch as learned matrimonial court failed to take notice, that allegation of adultery levelled by the appellant were fully supported by PW 4 i.e. Balbir Singh. The findings of the learned matrimonial court on this score are affirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the judgment and decree passed by the learned matrimonial court cannot be sustained, inasmuch as learned matrimonial court failed to take notice, that allegation of adultery levelled by the appellant were fully supported by PW 4 i.e. Balbir Singh. He deposed that respondent No.1 admitted her relationship with respondent No.2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that no dent could be created in the statement of Balbir Singh in cross examination. 9. This contention deserves to be rejected as the evidence beyond pleadings can not be looked into. As a matter of fact, allegations of adultery were not made against respondent No.2 in the petition. Allegations were levelled against Rajinder Singh. However, for the reasons best known to the appellant Rajinder Singh was not impleaded as party. 10. Reasons, however, seem to be obvious. It has come in evidence that identity of respondent No.2 was not established whereas Rajinder Singh, if made party, would have deposed against the case set up by the appellant. 11. On the ground of cruelty also allegations made were totally vague and no evidence was led in support of the allegations of cruelty. Learned matrimonial court, therefore, rightly decided issue of cruelty and adultery against the appellant. No ground is made out which may call for interference by this court. The appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs. ----------