Judgment S.D.Anand, J. 1. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter after referred to as "the Act") to obtain the dissolution of his marriage between the parties upon allegations which may be indicated as under :- 2. The marriage between the parties were solemnised, as per Anandkaraj ceremony, on 5.5.1993. The union of the parties led to the birth of a female child. Both the parties were not financially well off. The appellant-wife did not relish the fact that responent-husband, who is otherwise only son of his parents, was joint in mess and residence with his parental family and two uncles. From the very beginning of the marriage, the appellant-wife in the habit of the leaving the matrimonial house unannounced. She would go over to her natal house as and when she would want. At times, she had to be fetched from her natal house by either the respondent-husband or some other member of his family. 3. The respondent side expected that the birth of a female child would induce sense of responsibility in the mind of the appellant-wife but the hopes were belied. She never bothered for upkeep of the child. She would not even attend to the routine house hold chores. She would not serve food to the respondent- husband. Whenever the respondent-husband would ask her why she was not attending to the routine house hold chores, she remarked that she was not a domestic help and she would do only what she would want. When she was pressurised in the relevant behalf, she would at times leave the matrimonial house and would not even take the minor child along. There were, as well, when she would not be found to have gone over to her natal house and she would return to the matrimonial house after 3-4 days thereof. 4. In the month of October, 2001, the appellant- wife wanted to visit her parents. The respondent told her to postpone the visit, with an assurance that both of them would go over few days later. However, the appellant-wife remained adamant and left the matrimonial house. She did not even bother for the fact that the female child was attending the school at that point of time. On ascertainment, the respondent found that she had not even been to her natal house. However, the appellant-wife remained adamant and left the matrimonial house. She did not even bother for the fact that the female child was attending the school at that point of time. On ascertainment, the respondent found that she had not even been to her natal house. When the respondent went over to natal house of the appellant after 3-4 days, she was found available over there. When he called upon her to indicate her where abouts during the intervening 3-4 days, she could not offer any satisfactory explanation. When efforts made by the respondent personally and also his parents, to obtain the restoration of the appellant to the matrimonial house did not bear any fruit, a Panchayat of respectables was taken in July, 2003. However, the appellant announced before the Panchayat that she does not want to live with the respondent. Yet another Panchayat was taken for that very purpose, in September, 2003. On thai visit, the Gram Panchayat, Soye Majra (the natal village of the respondent) requested the Gram Panchayat of village, Sohana (the native village of the appellant-wife) to resolve the matter but the Panchayat members of the latter village and also the parents of the appellant expressed inability to pursuade the appellant to go back to the matrimonial house. In the last week of October, 2003, the parents of the appellant-wife went over to the respondent and informed him that she had not been visiting her natal house for the last about about one month. Since her whereabouts were not traceable, the father of the appellant lodged a DDR (No. 19 dated 3.11.2003 at Police Station, Sohana). 5. It was on the above allegations that the respondent-husband had filed a plea for dissolution of marriage. 6. The appellant-wife resisted the allegations in toto and averred that she had, infact, been subjected to cruelty and dowry- related torture in- spite of the fact that her father had given the indicated amount at different points of time to enable the respondent to raise the construction of a house and also the purchase of a tractor. It was alleged that it was the respondent who had turned her out of the matrimonial house. The trial proceeded on the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner ? OPP 7. It was alleged that it was the respondent who had turned her out of the matrimonial house. The trial proceeded on the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty ? OPP 2. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner ? OPP 7. The learned Trial Court recorded findings adverse to the appellant-wife and in favour of the respondent-husband under both the issues. 8. The averments made by the respondent-husband found favour with the learned Trial Court which allowed the petition and ordered dissolution of the marriage between the parties with effect from the date of that order. 9. The wife is in appeal. 10. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant-wife, argued that the impugned findings deserves to be reversed as those are unrelated to and oblivious of the material obtaining on the file. 11. In that context, it was argued that there is evidence on the file to prove that the appellant-wife had been subjected to dowry- related torture and her parents had been forced to pay a sum of Rs, 3 lacs (Rs. 2 lacs for the purchase of a tractor and Rs. 1 lac for the construction of the house) to satiate the dowry greed of the respondent-husband. 12. On a perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties on the file, I find that the plea is devoid of merit. The reasons therefor are as under :- There is no doubt that there was a plea in the course of the written statement that the natal family of the appellant-wife gave a sum of Rs. 3 lacs (Rs. 2 lacs for the purchase of a tractor and Rs. 1 lac for the construction of the house). That plea was reiterated by the appellant-wife and her father as RW-2 Gurdev Singh respectively. However, their deposition to the above effect is not reliable. In that context, it may be noticed that RW-2 Gurdev averred, in the course of cross-examination, that he held a bank account at the relevant point of time and that he was in possession of pass book from out of which he had withdrawn the amount which he had given to the respondent- husband for the purchase of a tractor. In that context, it may be noticed that RW-2 Gurdev averred, in the course of cross-examination, that he held a bank account at the relevant point of time and that he was in possession of pass book from out of which he had withdrawn the amount which he had given to the respondent- husband for the purchase of a tractor. Though he did not recollect the exact date of withdrawal of that amount, he averred that he had withdrawn a part of that amount from the bank account and part thereof represented the sale proceeds of crops. The further averment made by him, in the context, was that he paid the amount to respondent in cash. Thus, the best documented evidence in the context could be production of the relevant bank record which, if produced could be conclusively supportive of the averment of withdrawal of the relevant amount from out of it. The other evidence could be in respect of the sale of crops. It being a common practice that the agricultural produce is sold through a commission agent, the appellant could also have adduced evidence to that effect. It may be noticed, as proof of fat, that the father of the appellant did not indicate whether he had sold his agricultural produce at his own level or through a commission agent. The refrain in the relevant behalf could be on account of the obvious apprehension in the mind of Gurdev Singh that the plea being bogus, he would not be able to substantiate it. No such evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant at the trial. The onus upon the appellant to adduce documented evidence to the above effect. The obvious inference follows is that the appellant-wife had not been able to prove that any such amount was given to the respondent-husband. 13 There is yet another very significant fact proved on record to cement the plea of the respondent-husband that the appellant was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house unannounced and that, on one particular occasion, she left the matrimonial house and did not even go over to her natal house, thereby impelling her own father to lodge a DDR with the police. 14. Insofar as the lodging of the DDR is concerned, it was proved on record by the deposition on oath of PW-4 HC Amar Singh of Police Station, Suhana. 14. Insofar as the lodging of the DDR is concerned, it was proved on record by the deposition on oath of PW-4 HC Amar Singh of Police Station, Suhana. A perusal thereof would indicate that the lodger thereof i.e. the father of the appellant-wife made a categorical averment therein that his daughter was beyond his control and was in the habit of doing whatever she likes. 15. At the trial, the father of the appellant tried to wriggle out of the predicament of having to explain the lodging of the above DDR by averring that he had been called to the police station in the context of some application which the parents of the respondent-husband had allegedly given to the police. The further averment, in the context, is that his thumb impression was obtained on some paper on a presentation that his signatures were required to document the settlement made by the respondent side for withdrawal of the application. 16. The plea raised is illogical on the face of it. There is no proof on the file that the parents of the respondent-husband had made any complaint to the police. Even otherwise, it is not the averment that the whereabouts of the appellant-wife had been traced out by the time DDR aforementioned came to be lodged. In that view of things, it is apparent that there was no occasion for the respondent side or the police to obtain the signature of Gurdev Singh RW-2 on the attributed presentaion Gurdev Singh being the own father of the appellant is obviously trying to help out his daughter. 17. The appellant-wife also made an allegation in the (pleadings and also in evidence) at the trial that one Amrik Singh, a cousin of respondent- husband, wanted to establish illicit relations with her and the respondent did not take any note of the grievance which she made before him in the context. That allegation has not substantiated on record. Infact, not even a suggestion in that behalf was put to the respondent when he entered the witness box ,as his own witness. If there was any iota of truth in the relevant behalf, the best that the appellant could do in the context was to put the relevant suggestion to the respondents. 18. Infact, not even a suggestion in that behalf was put to the respondent when he entered the witness box ,as his own witness. If there was any iota of truth in the relevant behalf, the best that the appellant could do in the context was to put the relevant suggestion to the respondents. 18. The following facts are apparent from the material obtaining on the file :- 1) The appellant-wife in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house unannounced and she would, on such outingeven go over to her natal house, at times. Her unannounced absence from her matrimonial house and also her natal house had once forced her own father to lodge a DDR with the police. In the course of that report, he had made a categorical averment that his daughter ( i.e. the appellant) was not in his control. 2) The appellant has not been able to establish her allegation that she was subjected to any dowry-related torture or that her natal family had given the averred amount of Rs. 3 lacs to the respondent-husband; 3) The appellant has not been able to substantiate the allegation that Amirk Singh, a cousin of the respondent, wanted to establish illicit relations with her and even then she made a grievance of that fact to the respondent, he did not wink at it; 4) The appellant can safely be held accountable for having committed acts of cruelty by levelling unsubstantiated dowry-related and personal character- related allegations against the respondent. 19. The learned Trial Court, thus, had appropriately held the appellant accountable for having caused cruelty vis-a-vis the respondent-husband by levelling unsubstantiated allegations too. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge are relatable to the material obtaining on the file. There is nothing illegal or perverse in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court. The petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed. Petition dismissed.