JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant Digvijay Singh under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the Judgment dated 20.3.2012 (wrongly mentioned as 20.3.2011) passed by learned District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Misc. Case No. 125/2010, whereby, the learned Judge allowed the application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-wife and granted divorce to the respondent Smt. Rama @ Pinki. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that divorce application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed on two grounds, out of which one ground is cruelty and second one is desertion by the appellant. It is also submitted that learned trial Court has committed serious error while assessing the evidence adduced on record by the respondent-wife for granting divorce in her favour. There is no cogent finding to prove the ground of cruelty and only on the statement of father of respondent and respondent-wife herself, the learned trial Court granted decree for divorce, which is totally based upon patent illegality in the finding. The allegations with regard to dowry are also totally false because those allegations are not supported by any independent evidence, therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the judgment impugned may quashed. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant have perused the judgment, so also certified copy of witnesses AW-1 Smt. Rama, AW-2 Monohar Singh-father or respondent and neighbour AW-3 Ganpat Singh. 4. Upon perusal of affidavits and cross-examination made by the appellant, I am of the opinion that no error has been committed by the trial Court in granting divorce to the respondent-wife because there are specific allegation with regard to continuance beating and demand of dowry by the appellant himself after marriage. Further, there is no evidence on record to prove that any efforts were made by the appellant to bring his wife to home since 2006, therefore, it is obvious that rial Court has granted decree for divorce on the ground of desertion also. 5. In my opinion, there is no error or perversity in the finding given by the trial Court while allowing the application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the granting divorce to the respondent. 6. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the appeal. Hence, this misc. 5. In my opinion, there is no error or perversity in the finding given by the trial Court while allowing the application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the granting divorce to the respondent. 6. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the appeal. Hence, this misc. appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******