S.S. Saron, J. 1. The appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari whereby her petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act'-for short) seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the presence of relatives and 'biradari' (brotherhood) with the help of Uthan Society, a NGO, in 1998. The marital status of the parties was that they both were unmarried before the solemnization of their marriage. From the marriage, they had a daughter namely Bhawna who was aged 8 years and a son namely Tushar who was aged about 5 years at the time of filing the petition for divorce by the appellant-wife, which was filed on 15.05.2008. The appellant did not have a father and her marriage was performed by her mother with the help of Uthan Society. Simple household articles were given by the said Society. The mother and other relatives of the appellant gave other necessary household articles like bed, chairs and other articles including jewellery etc. The same were entrusted to the respondent and his family members. Other relatives of the appellant also gave valuable clothes, other articles and cash at the time of festivals from time to time as also at the time of the birth of the children. In this manner, sufficient dowry articles amounting to Rs. 1.00 lac were given to the respondent with the assurance that the same would be given by the respondent and his family members to the appellant on demand for her use as and when required. After marriage, the parties resided at Guru Nanak Pura, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar and they cohabited as husband and wife. According to the appellant, the attitude of the respondent and his family members was harsh towards her. He raised a demand of Rs. 25,000/- in cash and also a motorcycle. The appellant expressed her inability to fulfill this illegal demand. Due to this, the respondent at the behest of his mother started ill-treating and misbehaving with her. The respondent started beating the appellant without any fault on her part. He raised a demand of Rs. 25,000/- in cash and also a motorcycle. The appellant expressed her inability to fulfill this illegal demand. Due to this, the respondent at the behest of his mother started ill-treating and misbehaving with her. The respondent started beating the appellant without any fault on her part. Her in-laws used to instigate the respondent so as to compel her to bring an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from her parents. The respondent inflicted merciless beating to the appellant and kept her hungry. The respondent, it is alleged, also started misappropriating the household articles and he spent the money on drinking and gambling. When the appellant protested against the acts of the respondent, she was turned out of the matrimonial home many a times. However, each and every time, the respondent felt sorry and assured the family of the appellant that he would keep her with love and affection. Thereafter, he also misbehaved and taunted her on the demand for more and more dowry. At the time of birth of the children, the family of the appellant as per their custom gave ornaments for the child and valuable clothes for the respondent and for his parents and other near relatives. About a year earlier to the filing of the petition, the respondent turned the appellant out of the house without any fault on her part. She was asked to fulfill their demand of dowry; besides, also threatened that she will not be allowed to live with them without fulfilling their demand of dowry. She was turned out in three bare clothes with the children. Thereafter, the family of the appellant convened a 'panchayat' of the respectable persons of the 'biradari' (brotherhood) and common relatives. The respondent was also present in the meeting of the 'panchayat'. He, however, totally refused to keep and maintain the appellant and her children. Since the last one year from the filing of the petition, the appellant was living with her widowed mother under hunger and starvation at the mercy of God. In this manner, it is alleged that the respondent had spoiled the life of the appellant and her children. About 10 days earlier to the filing of the petition, when the family members of the appellant were not at home, the respondent came to their house and snatched the minor son namely Tushar. In this manner, it is alleged that the respondent had spoiled the life of the appellant and her children. About 10 days earlier to the filing of the petition, when the family members of the appellant were not at home, the respondent came to their house and snatched the minor son namely Tushar. In this manner, the daughter of the parties namely Bhawna was residing with the appellant and the minor son namely Tushar was residing with the respondent. The appellant submitted an application before the local police and also moved applications to the high ups but no action had been taken till the time of filing the petition. 3. On notice, written statement was filed by the respondent. He admitted the fact of marriage between the parties and also that both the parties were unmarried at the time of marriage; besides, the birth of the children was also admitted. It was, however, stated that another son was born and he died immediately after birth. The other allegations were denied. It is stated that at the time of marriage, father of the appellant had already died. Her mother was poor and she with the help of a voluntary organization i.e. Uthan Society, Yamuna Nagar solemnized the marriage at Yamuna Nagar with the help of charities collected by the Society. The Society collected the articles in charity from the public for performance of the marriage of the appellant. A small gold ring and a wrist watch were given to the respondent. A pair of ear ring tops and 'paijeb' were given to the appellant by the Society. A small cooker, two utensils and a glass dinner set; besides, attache case with two suits as also a pant and a shirt were given to the respondent and the appellant by the Society. It is stated that it was wrong to allege that the family of the appellant had given articles worth Rs. 1.00 lac to the respondent. The allegations are stated to be altogether false and frivolous. The breakfast in the marriage, it is stated was also arranged by the Society for the respondent and other 11 persons present at the occasion of marriage. No amount was spent on the marriage of the appellant by her family. 1.00 lac to the respondent. The allegations are stated to be altogether false and frivolous. The breakfast in the marriage, it is stated was also arranged by the Society for the respondent and other 11 persons present at the occasion of marriage. No amount was spent on the marriage of the appellant by her family. It was stated as wrong to allege that any gift was given to the respondent or the appellant on the occasion of birth of the children. It was stated that immediately after marriage, the parties resided in the house of parents of the respondent at Partap Nagar, Sawan Puri, Jagadhri. It was wrong to allege that the parents of the respondent were harsh towards the appellant as alleged. No dowry articles or cash were ever demanded from the appellant or her widowed mother. It was denied that the respondent ever demanded a motorcycle. It was also denied that the respondent or his parents had ill-treated the appellant. The house situated at Partap Nagar, Sawan Puri, Jagadhri was owned by the father of the respondent. After his death, the entries of the house in the house tax register were changed from his name to the name of Smt. Krishna Rani, mother of the respondent. Smt. Krishna Rani effected a family settlement amongst her three sons including the respondent in respect of the said house and another plot measuring 200 square yards. The mother of the respondent at the instance of the respondent gave 100 sq. yards with construction out of the said house to him. The transfer deed was executed in the name of the appellant as 'benami' on the expectation that the appellant and the respondent would live peacefully and amicably. The brothers of the appellant had been instigating the appellant on one pretext or the other and did not allow her to live peacefully as all the brothers of the appellant were greedy persons. The brothers of the appellant had been borrowing money on many occasions from the appellant in the presence of the respondent. The respondent never demanded Rs. 25000/- either from the appellant or her mother. It was wrong to allege that the respondent or his mother treated the appellant with cruelty. It was also stated as wrong to allege that the respondent was in the habit of drinking and gambling. The allegation was altogether false and frivolous. The respondent never demanded Rs. 25000/- either from the appellant or her mother. It was wrong to allege that the respondent or his mother treated the appellant with cruelty. It was also stated as wrong to allege that the respondent was in the habit of drinking and gambling. The allegation was altogether false and frivolous. The respondent used to work in a stainless steel factory at the time of his marriage. He was earning his livelihood by doing labour. The appellant had been cleaning utensils of different houses prior to her marriage with the respondent. She continued with the work of cleaning utensils even after her marriage. The brother of the appellant namely Kapil had been borrowing money from different persons known to the appellant on the surety and assurance of the appellant. Kapil raised a loan of Rs. 1500/- from Shri Mali Singh of HUDA, Jagadhari known to the appellant which he could not return. The appellant stopped going in his house. Shri Mali Singh started demanding his money from Kapil and the appellant. Kapil had been putting pressure on the appellant and the respondent to give him money for payment to his lender to which the respondent had resisted. It is denied that the family of the appellant had ever given any valuables or ornaments to the appellant at the time of the birth of the children. It was also stated as wrong to allege that the appellant had gone about a year earlier from the house of the respondent as alleged. In fact the mother and brother of the appellant came to the house of the respondent about three months ago and took the appellant and the children along with them. He further took all the belongings of the appellant. The appellant left the son in the house of the respondent after about a month and since then the son of the respondent was living with him and his grandmother. The appellant kept the daughter with her. It is stated as wrong to allege that the respondent ever demanded dowry as alleged. It is also stated as wrong to allege that the appellant had convened Panchayat as alleged. No Panchayat was ever held for reconciliation. The appellant kept the daughter with her. It is stated as wrong to allege that the respondent ever demanded dowry as alleged. It is also stated as wrong to allege that the appellant had convened Panchayat as alleged. No Panchayat was ever held for reconciliation. In fact the brother of the appellant put pressure on her to get the house in possession of the respondent vacated and get back the possession so that he may sell and pay off their debts. The appellant was under the control of her brother and she had threatened that she would sell the house to someone and she shall live separately and independently. The brothers of the appellant moved an application to the Uthan Society who called the respondent and he narrated the entire facts to them. Neither the appellant nor her brothers approached the Society. Therefor, it was wrong to allege that the appellant was living separately for the last more than one year. In fact she had left the society of the respondent since three months earlier to the filing of the reply. The appellant had visited the respondent four times and she left the house of the respondent. It is the appellant who was spoiling the peace and life of the respondent. The respondent had not turned out the appellant. In fact she had left the house of her own. It was stated as wrong to allege that the respondent had gone to the house of the appellant as alleged. In fact the appellant herself left the son with the respondent and kept the daughter with her. It was, however, stated that the police had called the respondent and recorded the statement of the appellant and the respondent. Thereafter it asked the parties to live peacefully as no offence was made out against the respondent. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner (now appellant) with cruelty on the grounds as mentioned in the petition, if so, to what effect? OPP 2. Relief. 5. The appellant in order to prove her case examined Sagar Bajaj resident of House No. 262, Rampura Colony, Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri Distt. Yamuna Nagar (PW-1). He tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. OPP 2. Relief. 5. The appellant in order to prove her case examined Sagar Bajaj resident of House No. 262, Rampura Colony, Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri Distt. Yamuna Nagar (PW-1). He tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. PW 1/A. It was deposed by him that he knew both the parties as he was the real brother of the appellant. It is stated that in the marriage which was solemnized in the year 1998, the family members of the appellant gave her household articles and other items. They spent an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac. The parties had a daughter and a son from their marriage. The daughter was living with the appellant while the son was living with the respondent. The son had been snatched by the respondent from the appellant while she was residing at her parental house. The respondent and his family members were found to be greedy type of persons. Thereafter, they started demanding more and more dowry articles from the appellant. They also raised a demand for Rs. 25,000/- or a motorcycle from the appellant. On her refusal she was inflicted with merciless beating by the respondent on the instigation of his family members. The appellant tolerated all the illegal acts of cruelty of the respondent in order to live with him. On demand of cash of Rs. 25,000/- and motorcycle, the respondent turned the appellant out of the house only in three clothes many a times. Each and every time the appellant was sent back to her matrimonial home in order to settle her life on the assurance of the respondent. The respondent, however, turned back from his assurance as given by him in the Panchayat of the 'Biradari' and relatives. About a year and seven months earlier to his (PW-1) deposition, she was again turned out by the respondent only in three clothes and since then the appellant was residing along with her brothers and other family members. In cross-examination it is stated by Sagar Bajaj (PW-1) that House No. 262, Rampura Colony was owned by him and it was his ancestral house. They were seven brothers and sisters. He along with his two brothers and mother resided in this house. Pooja appellant it is stated is his elder sister. She was married to the respondent in the premises of Uthan situated at Yamuna Nagar. They were seven brothers and sisters. He along with his two brothers and mother resided in this house. Pooja appellant it is stated is his elder sister. She was married to the respondent in the premises of Uthan situated at Yamuna Nagar. Some utensils, clothes and other household articles were given by Uthan in the marriage of the appellant. It is stated as correct that whatever gifts were given by Uthan in the marriages of the poor girls, these are collected from the public. The house in which the respondent resides, it is stated, is in the name of the appellant. The house was transferred by the mother of the respondent. The mother of the respondent had transferred the house in the name of the appellant due to the fact that the respondent was an addicted person i.e. addicted to intoxicants. The respondent was a junk dealer. He was residing in the house while the appellant was residing with them. It was incorrect to suggest that he had been asked by his sister i.e. the appellant to sell her house and give the sale consideration to him. It is stated as correct that the appellant was earning her livelihood by cleaning utensils at different houses i.e. three-four houses. Even before the marriage she used to clean utensils in the houses of others and even after two years of the marriage, she had started doing this work. 6. Pooja appellant (PW-2) tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. PW 2/A. In her affidavit she has reiterated the averments as made by her in the petition. It is inter alia stated that the respondent started giving beating to her without any fault on her part. Her in-laws used to instigate the respondent to compel her to bring an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from her parents. The respondent on the instigation of his mother used to beat her and she was also kept hungry. The respondent also misappropriated the household articles and spent the money on drinking and gambling. When the appellant protested against the acts of the respondent, she was turned out of the matrimonial home many a times but each time the respondent felt sorry and assured the parents of the appellant that he would keep her with love and affection. Thereafter also he started misbehaving with her and taunted her for demand of more and more dowry. Thereafter also he started misbehaving with her and taunted her for demand of more and more dowry. The other allegations as made in the petition are reiterated. In cross-examination it is accepted as correct that before marriage she used to work as a house mate. She was doing this job with Uthan Society and used to get Rs. 4,000/- per month. She left the job with Uthan Society at the time of her marriage. She did not know whether Uthan Society had given articles to her at the time of marriage which they used to receive from the public as donation. At the time of marriage, the respondent was residing in the house at Sawan Puri along with her father-in-law Chaman Lal and mother Krishna. Her father in law had died about one year of her marriage. The mother of the respondent was still alive. House at Sawan Puri was in the name of Krishna Rani, mother of the respondent. The house was partitioned in two shares. One share was given to her (Pooja) and the other to her brother-in-law ('Devar'). When the share in that house was given to the appellant, she along with her children and husband used to reside in the same house. Her brother Sagar Bajaj (PW-1) works as a mason/pasting plaster of Paris in buildings. Her brother was unmarried. He was residing with the mother of the appellant at Ram Pura at Yamuna Nagar. It is stated that the respondent used to beat her and harass her and also used to demand money from her. She could not tell the name of any person in whose presence, the respondent gave her a beating. She never requested any neighbour to intervene. Two, three times Panchayats were held at Uthan and twice at police post Ram Pura. She could not tell the specific dates and months. The matter was taken up before Uthan orally. She was directed by the members of the Uthan only to reside with her husband (respondent) and she started living with him. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that her brothers ever asked her to sell her house. She had never negotiated with any person to sell her house. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that her brothers were to pay a lot of money which they had borrowed. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that her brothers ever asked her to sell her house. She had never negotiated with any person to sell her house. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that her brothers were to pay a lot of money which they had borrowed. About two years earlier, the respondent had beaten her and her arm was fractured. She was medico legally examined at Kolhi Hospital. She could produce the MLR. She was given a beating by the respondent in the month of April 2007 when her arm was fractured. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that the respondent had not given a beating to her and as a result of that her left arm was fractured. It is stated that she is illiterate and was residing separately from her husband for the last one and a half years to two years. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that the respondent ever approached her and requested to keep and maintain her as his wife. She was not ready to live with the respondent as his wife. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that she left her son with the respondent. In fact the respondent had taken her son forcibly on the pretext of keeping him for three days only and to leave him after schools vacations. Her son was studying in Vishvas School, HUDA in LKG. Her daughter was residing with her and was aged 9 years and her son was aged 5 years. It is stated as correct that she was working as servant in the houses but she could not tell the names of those persons. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that she does not want to disclose the names of those house owners intentionally. She was working in 4-5 houses. She get Rs. 300-400-500/- from one house. She was earning Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 3000/- per month. It is stated as correct that Madan Lal (respondent) was doing a job of a 'kabari' (junk dealer) and 'pheri' (kiosk) work. It is stated as incorrect that she had filed the petition on false grounds. It is further stated as incorrect that the respondent had never beaten her. She did not want to live with the respondent, even though he was ready to keep her. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that she had deposed falsely. 7. It is stated as incorrect that she had filed the petition on false grounds. It is further stated as incorrect that the respondent had never beaten her. She did not want to live with the respondent, even though he was ready to keep her. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that she had deposed falsely. 7. The respondent Madan Lal (RW-1) in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex. RW-1/A. It is inter alia stated by the respondent that he was married with Pooja according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the year 1998. At that time the father of Pooja (appellant) was not alive. Her mother was a very poor lady. The marriage of Pooja was got solemnized by a voluntary society at Yamuna Nagar after collecting donations and articles. The marriage was solemnized with him. The voluntary organization at the time of marriage had given a small gold ring, a wrist watch, tops and 'paijeb' to Pooja (appellant) at the time of marriage. Apart from this, a cooker, a glass dinner set and an attaché case with two pairs of clothes were given. The family of Pooja from their side' however, did not give any dowry articles. In this marriage, the breakfast was also arranged by the Society. In the marriage from the side of respondent, 11 persons had come in the 'barat' (marriage party). It was wrong on the part of Pooja to say that her family had spent Rs. 1.00 lac in the marriage. In the marriage, no gift or article of any kind was given to him by the family of Pooja. After marriage they lived together as husband and wife. They stayed at House No. 253, which was in the name of his father. After his death this house was mutated in the name of his mother and in the records of the Nagar Parishad, it was entered in the name of his mother. His mother in a family settlement partitioned the house in favour of all the three brothers. The house was earlier 200 sq. yards. In the partition half of the house was given to Banwari and 100 sq. yards in which the rooms were constructed was given to him. He got the registration done of the house 'benami' in the name of his wife. The house was earlier 200 sq. yards. In the partition half of the house was given to Banwari and 100 sq. yards in which the rooms were constructed was given to him. He got the registration done of the house 'benami' in the name of his wife. In fact from the beginning and till the time of deposing the affidavit, he alone was actually the owner of the house. Attitude of Pooja from the very beginning towards him was dry and improper. She used to fight with him on every issue and she never gave him any happiness as her husband and she never served him as his wife. The brothers of Pooja were greedy type of persons and they always connived to extract money from him. Pooja was a puppet in the hands of her brothers. It is wrong on the part of Pooja to say that from her mother a demand for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was raised. Neither had he raised a demand for a motorcycle from the respondent or her mother. The position in fact was that Pooja in collusion with her brothers repeatedly troubled him and asked for money. It was wrong on her part to say that he was a drunkard and that he gambles. It was also wrong on her part to say that he was working in the factory before marriage and the work in the factory finished later. He had later started the work of dealing in junk. Pooja before her marriage used to wash utensils in people's houses and after marriage also she washed utensils. The brother of Pooja namely Kapil by making him a guarantor had borrowed money on loan from the person who were known to him and thereafter he did not return the money. The brother of Pooja had borrowed money from Mali Singh resident of HUDA, Jagadhari who was known to him. This was borrowed on his assurance and he had misused his associates. Later Kapil pressurized him and his wife to return the money. The family of the appellant at the time of birth of the children namely Tushar and Bhawna had never given any costly gifts. The mother of the appellant and her brother in April 2008 had taken Pooja and his children with them. They also took all the items which they had got at the time of marriage. The family of the appellant at the time of birth of the children namely Tushar and Bhawna had never given any costly gifts. The mother of the appellant and her brother in April 2008 had taken Pooja and his children with them. They also took all the items which they had got at the time of marriage. Thereafter, Pooja left their son Tushar at his house in June, 2008. He and his son Tushar and his mother were living alone in their house. Pooja and her brothers wanted to occupy his house and she wants to pay the loan that her brothers had taken. The appellant and her brothers made efforts to bring the respondent on the road. Pooja on many occasions had got purchasers to his house and she had made attempts to take possession of the house in which they had not been successful. The appellant Pooja had taken one room outside on rent where undesirable type of persons come and go. On coming to know this, they had many a times lodged complaint at the police station but on coming to know this, she takes another house on rent. Some undesirable type persons come with Pooja on the hearing dates and they pressurize him to sell his house. She also filed a civil suit regarding his House No. 253 situated at Guru Nanak Pura near Sawan Puri Colony, Jagadhari. She by wrong means wants to occupy this house and after selling it pay up the loans of her brothers. He had never demanded any dowry from Pooja, her mother and her brothers. Pooja had made false allegations against him and whatever is alleged is without any foundation. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is stated by him that he was a hawker by profession. He deals in sale and purchase of junk. He earns Rs. 50/- to Rs. 200/- per day. He was providing education to his son. His son was studying in Hindu Girls School in 2nd Class. The sale deed of the house was kept in the name of his wife. In the family settlement, his father gave him this plot during his life time but he got the registration done in the name of his wife through his mother after the death of his father as his wife was lucky for him. The sale deed of the house was kept in the name of his wife. In the family settlement, his father gave him this plot during his life time but he got the registration done in the name of his wife through his mother after the death of his father as his wife was lucky for him. He was, however, in possession of the house. In the marriage which was solemnized by Uthan, one wrist watch and a gold ring was given to him while silver 'paijeb' and one attache case containing two suits and utensils were given to the appellant. The allegations levelled by him against the appellant in para 13 of the affidavit were true. He never made any complaint to the police in this regard. It was incorrect to suggest that he had levelled false allegations against the appellant. It was incorrect to suggest that he was deposing falsely. 8. The respondent also examined Mohinder Kumar (RW-2) who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. RW 2/A. It is inter alia stated by him that he had known the parties for the last five years. His house was near the house of Madan Lal respondent. Madan Lal did the work of hawker and Pooja worked in the houses of persons. They had daily disputes with each other. Pooja was used to say that it was her house and he should vacate it. The brothers of Pooja often used to come to her. They used to instigate Pooja against Madan Lal and used to say that the house be got vacated from Madan Lal respondent so that they could sell it. Madan Lal used to say that the house was of his mother and he also had a right in it. He (RW-2) was present at his house in April, 2007 and at about 10.00 am, he heard a noise from the house of Madan Lal. He came out of his house and saw that Pooja and her brother had got into a scuffle with Madan Lal and were abusing him and the brothers of Pooja were hitting Madan Lal. He ran and got Madan Lal freed. Thereafter, also on many occasions Pooja used to quarrel with Madan Lal. Pooja and her brother as also her mother had quarreled with Madan Lal in April, 2008 also and they were saying that he should vacate the house. He ran and got Madan Lal freed. Thereafter, also on many occasions Pooja used to quarrel with Madan Lal. Pooja and her brother as also her mother had quarreled with Madan Lal in April, 2008 also and they were saying that he should vacate the house. Hearing their quarrel, he (RW-2) and other neighbours reached at the spot and they interfered. While leaving, the brothers of Pooja took her and the daughter with the luggage and they did not allow Madan Lal to enter the house. Since then Pooja had been living separate from Madan Lal who was living in the house of his mother. The house of Madan Lal was lying locked. Due to the dispute Madan Lal also does not come and go there. Madan Lal has a son whose name is Tushar and he was residing with Madan Lal. Mohinder Kumar (RW-2) was cross-examined. It is stated by him in his cross-examination that he knew Madan Lal for the last 20-25 years. He did not know when he was married. It was correct that he knew the respondent personally for the last five years. He (RW-2) was residing in the neighbourhood for the past about five years but he knew him (respondent) much before that. The dispute between the parties, it is stated, is in respect of the house. The parents of the respondent used to live separately. The respondent used to live with the petitioner (now appellant). The respondent was working as 'Pheriwala' (kiosk) of waste material (kabad). It is stated that he (RW-2) knew the contents of his affidavit (Ex. RW-2/A). He had signed the same after reading it. It was wrong to suggest that he had deposed falsely. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was being ill treated; besides, being given a beating in connection with repeated demands of dowry. Therefore, she on 15.05.2008 filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant was without her father and the marriage had been solemnized with the help of Uthan Society. The family of the appellant had, however, given dowry articles worth Rs. 1.00 lac with which the respondent and his family were dissatisfied. They demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in cash; besides, a motorcycle. The appellant expressed her inability to fulfill their demand. The family of the appellant had, however, given dowry articles worth Rs. 1.00 lac with which the respondent and his family were dissatisfied. They demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in cash; besides, a motorcycle. The appellant expressed her inability to fulfill their demand. Therefore, she was ill treated. The respondent also misappropriated the household articles to satisfy his lust for gambling. It is submitted that the case of the appellant is corroborated by the deposition of Sagar Bajaj PW-1; besides, the appellant in para 6 of the petition specifically pleaded that she was inflicted with merciless beating and kept hungry by the respondent. The said fact has not been denied by the respondent in his reply or evidence. Meaning thereby that he admits the fact of beating the appellant and keeping her hungry, which by itself, it is submitted, is sufficient to establish cruelty. Reference has been made to the case of Simranjit Kaur v. Ravinder Parkash Singh, 2013(5) RCR (Civil) 67 (P & H) (DB). It is also submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent was an addict and used to gamble. Due to the said reasons, the appellant had suffered many difficulties. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce. 10. In response learned counsel for the respondent submits that the allegations of the appellant-wife were wrong and have been completely denied. It is submitted that the real dispute is regarding the house which the respondent got registration done in the name of his wife (appellant) as she was lucky for him. The appellant now in fact wants to forcibly occupy the house and oust the respondent. Thereafter she wants to sell the house to clear the loans that have been raised by her brother Kapil. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. The fact of marriage between the parties is not denied. After marriage the parties lived together as husband and wife is also not denied. According to the appellant, she was ill-treated and subjected to cruelty by the respondent who often used to beat her. Besides, he raised a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a motorcycle, which she could not fulfill. According to the appellant, the respondent is addicted to intoxicants and is habitual in gambling. According to the appellant, she was ill-treated and subjected to cruelty by the respondent who often used to beat her. Besides, he raised a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and a motorcycle, which she could not fulfill. According to the appellant, the respondent is addicted to intoxicants and is habitual in gambling. According to the respondent, the real dispute in fact is the house which he had got transferred in the name of his wife (appellant) as he felt that she was lucky for him. However, the appellant was now wanting to usurp the house and sell the same so as to clear the loans that her brother has taken. It may be noticed that as regards the house, according to the respondent a civil suit filed by the appellant is already pending. Therefore, in respect of the house, the matter is to be considered and decided by the Civil Court in the pending litigation. The present case relates to the grant of divorce in favour of the appellant on the ground of cruelty. The financial condition of both the parties is indeed quite weak. The respondent is working as hawker and dealing in junk material whereas the appellant is washing utensils in various houses. The learned trial Court held that the possibility of the respondent giving dowry worth Rs. 1.00 lac is quite remote; besides, it was not the case of the appellant that the respondent did not have any idea about the financial status of her family. The possibility of having demanded Rs. 25,000/- in cash and a motorcycle, it was held, can safely be ruled out. The allegations according to the learned trial Court appeared to have been made in routine. Insofar as the respondent being addicted to vices like gambling and drinking it was held by the learned trial Court that the same were vague and lacked details. No specific instances had been cited or brought on record which could reveal any such flaw in the character of the respondent. In other words, it was observed that to say that respondent was addicted to vices without specifying anything further was insufficient. 12. It may, however, be noticed that the appellant has alleged that the respondent inflicted beating to her and averments in this regard have been made in Para 6 of the petition, which have not been specifically denied. In other words, it was observed that to say that respondent was addicted to vices without specifying anything further was insufficient. 12. It may, however, be noticed that the appellant has alleged that the respondent inflicted beating to her and averments in this regard have been made in Para 6 of the petition, which have not been specifically denied. In Para 6 of the petition, the appellant has inter alia alleged that the respondent started giving beating to her with no fault on her part. Her in-laws used to instigate him to compel the appellant to bring an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from her parents. The respondent, it is alleged, on the instigation of his mother gave merciless beating to her and kept her hungry. He also started misappropriating household articles and spent the money on drinking and gambling. When the appellant protested the acts of the respondent, she was turned out of the matrimonial house many a times. However, each and every time the respondent felt sorry and assured the parents of the appellant that she would be kept with love and affection. Thereafter, also he misbehaved with her and taunted her in connection with demand of more and more dowry articles. 13. In the written statement to Para 6, it is stated that Para 6 of the petition is wrong and hence denied. The respondent never demanded Rs. 25,000/- either from the petitioner or her mother. It is stated as wrong to allege that the respondent or his mother treated the appellant with cruelty. It is stated as wrong to allege that the respondent was in the habit of drinking and gambling. The allegation, it is stated, was altogether false and frivolous. It is stated that the respondent used to work in a stainless steel factory at the time of his marriage and earning his livelihood by doing labour. The petitioner had been cleaning utensils of houses prior to her marriage with the respondent. She continued this work of cleaning utensils even after marriage. The brother of the appellant namely Kapil had been borrowing money from different persons known to the petitioner (appellant). He gave surety and assurance of the petitioner (appellant). Kapil, it is stated, raised a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from Sh. Mali Singh of HUDA, Jagadhri known to the petitioner (appellant) which he could not return. Sh. The brother of the appellant namely Kapil had been borrowing money from different persons known to the petitioner (appellant). He gave surety and assurance of the petitioner (appellant). Kapil, it is stated, raised a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from Sh. Mali Singh of HUDA, Jagadhri known to the petitioner (appellant) which he could not return. Sh. Mali Singh demanded his money from Kapil and the petitioner (appellant). Kapil had been putting pressure on the petitioner (appellant) and the respondent to give him money for payment to his lender to which the respondent had resisted. It in fact appears that the respondent wishes to convey that the brother of the appellant had taken loans from his acquaintances and on his assurance, however, it has inadvertently been mentioned as petitioner in the written statement. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent though had made pointed references to the averments in the corresponding para 6 of the written statement. However, in the written statement of the respondent, it is not specifically denied by him with regard to the merciless beating being inflicted by the respondent and his mother, besides, she being kept hungry. 15. The averments made in a petition for divorce or in the plaint of a suit are required to be specifically denied. In terms of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC-for short), the defendant or the respondent in a matrimonial case is to present a written statement of his defence within 30 days from the date of summons on him. In terms of Order 8 Rule 3 CPC, the denial is to be specific. It is provided that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. Order 8 Rule 4 CPC relates to evasive denial and it is provided that where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Order 8 Rule 4 CPC relates to evasive denial and it is provided that where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Specific denial is provided for in terms of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC, which envisages that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against the person under disability. In terms of the proviso, it is envisaged that the Court may in its discretion require any fact for admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. 16. In Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, : (2003) 8 SCC 673 (at page 693) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in terms of Order 8 Rule 3 CPC, a defendant is required to deny or dispute the statements made in the plaint categorically, as an evasive denial would amount to an admission of the allegation made in the plaint in terms of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC. Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was observed that a fact admitted need not be proved. In paragraph 15 of the written statement, in the said case, the respondent had not specifically contended that the statements made in paragraph 18 of the election petition were incorrect or how they were so. Merely the said allegations had been denied as being imagination of the election petitioner without making a statement of fact that Rohit Kumar was not the elder brother of the respondent or was in fact younger to him. Such an evasive denial, it was held, attracts Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The statements made in paragraph 18 of the election petition must, therefore, it was held, be deemed to have been admitted. 17. In Simranjit Kaur's case (supra), referred to by learned counsel for the appellant, three witnesses had tendered their affidavits by way of examination-in-chief and deposed in clear term that the appellant therein had been treated with cruelty and in that regard gave various instances. The respondent though chose to cross-examine all the witnesses of the respondent but failed to illicit any material to show that the appellant had not been treated with cruelty. The respondent though chose to cross-examine all the witnesses of the respondent but failed to illicit any material to show that the appellant had not been treated with cruelty. Only suggestions were put that the appellant had not been treated with cruelty. The said suggestions were specifically denied by the three witnesses. The respondent neither appeared in support of his plea nor examined his father in whose favour he had executed a power of attorney to represent him in the case. A Division Bench of this Court, held that the allegation of cruelty levelled by the appellant had gone un-rebutted. Besides, the evidence of the appellant when considered as a whole, it was held, sufficiently established that the appellant had been treated with cruelty and, therefore, entitled to a decree of divorce on the said ground. 18. Indeed the averments regarding the appellant being inflicted with merciless beating and being kept hungry have not been denied by the respondent. In terms of Order 8 Rule 5 CPC, as has been noticed above every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant is to be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. Therefore, there is to be specific denial of allegation of fact in the plaint. In terms of the proviso, however, the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. In the present case, apart from the evasive denial by the respondent with regard to the allegations of beating the appellant and keeping her hungry, there is the evidence and deposition of the appellant by way of affidavit (Ex. PW-2/A) in which she has deposed that the respondent started giving beating to her with no fault on her part and the respondent on the instigation of his mother, gave merciless beating and kept her hungry. He also misappropriated household articles and spent the money on drinking an gambling. When the appellant protested the acts of the respondent, she was turned out of the matrimonial home many a time. The appellant was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent in which it is reiterated that the respondent used to beat and harass her. He also misappropriated household articles and spent the money on drinking an gambling. When the appellant protested the acts of the respondent, she was turned out of the matrimonial home many a time. The appellant was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent in which it is reiterated that the respondent used to beat and harass her. It is stated that she could not tell the name of any person in whose presence the respondent gave beating to her. She never requested any neighbour to intervene. It is stated that about two years earlier the respondent had beaten her and her arm was fractured. She was medico-legally examined at Kolhi Hospital and she could produce the MLR (medico-legal report). It is further stated that she was given beating by the respondent in the month of April 2007 when her arm was fractured. It is stated as incorrect to suggest that the respondent had not given beating to her and as a result of that her left arm was fractured. 19. In the circumstances, there is evidence and material on record to establish that the appellant was inflicted with beating by the respondent. The appellant has also mentioned the fact that her arm was fractured as a consequence of the beating by the respondent. Therefore, there is material on record otherwise than that of mere evasive denial that the respondent used to beat the appellant which certainly amounts to cruelty. 20. It may also be noticed that Tushar son of the parties was living with the respondent. It is admitted case of the respondent as also the witness produced by him namely Mohinder Kumar (RW-2) that in April, 2008 Pooja had left with her children for her mother's house. Thereafter according to the appellant, the respondent came and picked up the minor son of the parties. She had complained to the police but no action was taken. According to the respondent, the appellant herself came and left Tushar with them. The preponderance of the probability would, however, show that it is quite unnatural that the appellant would herself leave her son at the house of the respondent. In case both the children were staying with her, she would not go and leave her son with the respondent on her own. The preponderance of the probability would, however, show that it is quite unnatural that the appellant would herself leave her son at the house of the respondent. In case both the children were staying with her, she would not go and leave her son with the respondent on her own. The possibility and probability of the respondent going to the house of the appellant and taking his son with him on the pretext that he would be returned after his holidays were over, is more. Therefore, the respondent apart from inflicting the appellant with beating has also in a deceitful manner got his son from her; besides, the respondent has levelled allegations that the appellant is living with undesirable persons and whenever he approaches the police and makes complaints, she changes her residence. These allegations are without any substance and it is not mentioned as to which residence has the appellant changed; besides, who were the persons that were coming to her. The said allegations in fact go to cast aspersions on the character and conduct of the appellant without any basis or foundation. This by itself is sufficient ground to hold that the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty. In case such allegations were to be made, it was for the respondent to establish the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence rather making mere bald assertions that undesirable persons had been visiting the appellant at her house which she had taken on rent. No particulars of the houses that are stated to be taken on rent are mentioned or even stated in the deposition of the respondent. Therefore, in view of the vague and loose allegations that have been made by the respondent in his affidavit would show his bent of mind towards the appellant and his suspicious nature of her character and conduct. 21. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent has not treated the appellant with cruelty. For the said reasons, the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce notwithstanding the dispute with regard to the house that is pending and which would be adjudicated upon in the said litigation that is pending and not in this petition. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court are set aside and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court are set aside and the marriage between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. There shall be no order as to costs.