JUDGMENT This appeal, preferred under section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.03.2012 passed by District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Original Suit No. 31 of 2009, whereby said court has allowed the petition filed by the wife (present respondent) under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and dissolved the marriage between the parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts, of the case, are that appellant (defendant) Sobat Singh Sajwan got married to respondent (plaintiff) Kaushalaya Devi on 28.05.1985, in village Kaleth within the limits of district of Tehri Garhwal, following Hindu Rites. Three children (two daughters and one son) born out of the wed-lock. The wife (present respondent) filed petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, seeking decree of divorce against the appellant (defendant), on the ground of cruelty. (In District Tehri Garhwal there is no Family Court established so far). It is pleaded by the wife before the trial court against her husband that he was a drunkard and a gambler. It is further pleaded in the petition that her husband used to beat her in a drunken state and also misbehaved with children and treated them with cruelty due to which it was difficult for her, and her children to live with her husband, as such she came from Delhi (where the couple used to live) to Dehradun and started living in a rented accommodation with the help of her parents. 4. The appellant (defendant) contested the suit and filed his written statement. He admitted that he got married to Kaushalaya Devi on 28.05.1985, and the fact that three children namely Sonia, Ambika (two daughters) and Naveen (son) were born out of the wed-lock. But the allegations of cruelty were denied by the husband. He further pleaded that neither he treated his wife with cruelty, nor his children. It is also stated in the written statement by the husband that without any sufficient cause his wife left him and deprived him of company of his children. 5. The trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed following issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was subjected to cruel behaviour by the respondent? If so, its effect? It is also stated in the written statement by the husband that without any sufficient cause his wife left him and deprived him of company of his children. 5. The trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed following issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was subjected to cruel behaviour by the respondent? If so, its effect? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief sought on the allegations made in the petition? (iii) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner is entitled? 6. From the side of the petitioner (wife) under Order 18, Rule 4 she filed her own affidavit as examination-in-chief and also of her son Naveen. Petitioner Kaushalaya Devi was cross-examined as P.W.1 and her son Naveen was cross-examined as P.W.2. The third witness Sonia, P.W.3 (daughter of couple) though filed her examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit but she was discharged as she was not produced for cross-examination. From the side of the husband (appellant) he filed his own affidavit and that of two witnesses Narendra Singh Sajwan (D.W.2) and Prem Singh Bisht (D.W.3) as their examination in chief but none of the three witnesses turned up for cross-examination, for the reasons best known to the appellant (husband) as such the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner Kaushalaya Devi (present respondent) remained unrebutted. 7. In the present case though as many as three witnesses have filed their affidavits on behalf of the defendant (husband) under Order 18 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as their examination-in-chief, but none of them were produced for cross-examination for the reasons best known to him. The trial court has rightly not given weight to such statements of the witnesses. Examination of a witness means and includes examination- in-chief, and his cross-examination and his re-examination if any, as provided in section 137 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No examination of a witness is complete if the adverse party is not allowed to cross-examine him (reliance is placed on Banwari Lal v. State, AIR 1956 Allahabad 385). Though uncross examined evidence does not cease to be evidence and there is no provision to expunge such evidence from the record but its character would remain as that of an untested evidence (reliance is placed on Khudiram Sardar v. Mondal Hansda, AIR 1955 NUC (Calcutta) 2879). Though uncross examined evidence does not cease to be evidence and there is no provision to expunge such evidence from the record but its character would remain as that of an untested evidence (reliance is placed on Khudiram Sardar v. Mondal Hansda, AIR 1955 NUC (Calcutta) 2879). However, unfinished statement of a witness who died before he is cross-examined, or before his cross-examination is finished can be read in evidence (reliance is placed on Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC page 519) : ( AIR 2003 SC 4664 ). In those cases where the witness is produced for cross-examination but the opposite party fails to cross-examine him, evidence of such witness can also be read as a tested evidence unless there is some inherent improbability (reliance is placed on Bijai Ram Kanshi Ram v. Jai Ram Ganga Ram, AIR 1955 Himachal Pradesh 57). The court is not bound to wait for any length of time and thus waste public time if a lawyer does not turn up in court to cros-examine the witness of the opposite party (reliance is placed on Dwarkabai v. Ukharda Ganpat, AIR 1954 Nagpur 252). But a witness cannot be withdrawn from the witness box to deprive of the opposite party from cross-examination when such party is ready for the same (reliance is placed on Harihar Sinha v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Calcutta 356). Had it been a case where the opportunity was given but the opposite party failed to cross-examine the witness even the examination-in-chief will be treated as a complete statement which can be read in evidence as a tested evidence (reliance is placed on B.V. Smitha Rani v. M.K. Girish (2009) 17 SCC 660 ). 8. As against the evidence adduced on behalf of the husband in the present case in the form of affidavits of D.W.1 Sobat Singh Sajwan, D.W.2 Narendra Singh Sajwan and D.W.3 Prem Singh Bisht who were not produced for cross-examination for the best reasons known to the appellant (husband), petitioner Kaushalaya Devi who filed a divorce petition subjected herself to cross-examination and her testimony remained unshaken. Not only this, the statement of P.W.1 Kaushalaya Devi got further corroborated by the statement of P.W. 2 Naveen (son of couple) who was also subjected to cross-examination, and there is nothing in his cross-examination which creates doubt in his testimony. Not only this, the statement of P.W.1 Kaushalaya Devi got further corroborated by the statement of P.W. 2 Naveen (son of couple) who was also subjected to cross-examination, and there is nothing in his cross-examination which creates doubt in his testimony. Both the witnesses are natural as they were insiders of the family and could have made statement as to the behaviour of the appellant in the house. Both the witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) told the court that appellant Sobat Singh is a drunkard who used to beat his wife. They have also stated that the appellant is gambler who wasted the money given by the parents of the respondent. 9. In the above circumstances, the trial court has rightly concluded that from the evidence on record it is proved that the petitioner (wife) was subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband (present appellant). Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that had there been actual physical cruelty as alleged by P.W.1 Kausalaya Devi, some complaints must have been made to the police, and in absence of such documentary evidence the trial court has erred in law in believing the oral testimony of the witness (P.W.1). However, this Court is unable to accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant for the reason that in the matters of quarrel between husband and wife every act is not reported to the police by the party suffering the behaviour of his or her spouse. If the husband comes in a drunken condition in the house and beats his wife and children, and as a gambler spent the money in gambling given by parents of his wife for purchasing the house, it constitutes cruelty. Both the witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) who were cross-examined on behalf of the appellant before the trial court, have stated that the behaviour of the appellant was such that it was not possible for them to continue to live with him. P.W.1 Kaushalaya Devi has specifically stated that the money given by her father to her husband by which the plot was purchased in Delhi, the appellant (husband) sold said land to fulfill his needs of gambling. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and after re-appreciating the evidence on record, this Court agrees that the wife has made out a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and after re-appreciating the evidence on record, this Court agrees that the wife has made out a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. 10. For the reasons, as discussed above, this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the trial court regarding dissolution of marriage between the parties, which deserves to be affirmed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.