JUDGMENT : RAJ RAHUL GARG, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by husband-Vinay Kumar against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2014, passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the petition for judicial separation instituted by wife-Manju Rani was allowed on the ground of cruelty. 2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.10.2008. Parties cohabited only for 2-3 days. It was averred that during those days husband behaved in cruel manner. He gave several beatings to the wife. His behaviour was beastly in nature. It was asserted that the wife was unable to bear the beastly acts of the husband as such she came back to her parental home and live with her parents for the last more than five years. 3. Husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') before District Judge, Hisar, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.04.2011. Thereafter, the wife had also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act on 22.10.2009 which was dismissed as she was not able to prove the averments made in the petition. While petitioner-wife was at her parents' house, she was threatened by appellant-husband telephonically and many times he sent his friends in this context. As per wife, husband has caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner-wife that it will be harmful and injurious for her to live with the husband. It is also the allegation against the husband that he has treated the wife with cruelty and gave beatings under intoxication. He has behaved with the petitioner-wife in inhuman manner and insulted her by every possible manner, using derogatory and ugly remarks against her and her parents. 4. On the other hand, it is the case of the appellant-husband that the petition is false and has been filed with an intention to harass and humiliate him. She has taken contradictory stands at different points of time just for wrongful gains. She has not come to the Court with the clean hands. On the day of marriage, after the marriage, parties stayed at Youth Hostel, Mussoorie for three days and, thereafter, petitioner-wife came to the house of the appellant-husband along with him and stayed there as his legally wedded wife and, thereafter, she herself left the company of her husband at the instance of her father. On the day of marriage, after the marriage, parties stayed at Youth Hostel, Mussoorie for three days and, thereafter, petitioner-wife came to the house of the appellant-husband along with him and stayed there as his legally wedded wife and, thereafter, she herself left the company of her husband at the instance of her father. It was specifically denied that husband ever committed any act of cruelty or maltreated her or ever gave beatings to her. It was further averred that it is the petitioner-wife who has been acting in cruel manner and has left the husband in lurch. 5. The learned trial Court granted decree for judicial separation in favour of wife holding that it is proved that it was not possible for the petitioner-wife to live with husband on account of cruelty perpetrated upon her. Her residing separately after 2-3 days of marriage from the husband seems to be justified and further that filing of present petition even after dismissal of petition under Section 12 of the Act, is not barred as their earlier petition was on different footings. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also appraised the material coming on the record as well as judgment of the learned trial Court. Factum of marriage between the parties is not disputed. Even it is not disputed that the marriage was duly consummated. 7. It was argued by learned counsel for the appellant husband that wife hardly lived for seven days in her matrimonial home. Her behaviour was rude, arrogant and quarrelsome. She openly started declaring that she does not like the appellant-husband. She created scenes on petty matters and even in the street. While entering in her matrimonial home she started saying that she does not like the appellant-husband and his family members. Period for which she lived in her matrimonial home was horrible. 8. The above arguments of learned counsel for the appellant husband are not sustainable as no where in the pleadings before the learned trial court, the husband-appellant had taken such plea. There is also no material available on record regarding rude and arrogant behaviour of the wife or that she ever created scenes on petty matters. Also there is no material on the file to show as to how her behaviour was horrible for the appellant-husband or his family members rather the boot is on the other leg. There is also no material available on record regarding rude and arrogant behaviour of the wife or that she ever created scenes on petty matters. Also there is no material on the file to show as to how her behaviour was horrible for the appellant-husband or his family members rather the boot is on the other leg. It is the categoric case of the petitionerwife that husband had behaved in cruel manner and treated to force himself upon her unnaturally and it was not possible for her to bare such beastly act of her husband. 9. The stay of wife in her matrimonial home was only for 2- 3 days. Thereafter, she did no go back to her matrimonial home nor there is any averment or proof on the file to show that the husband had ever tried to take her back to matrimonial home. Even the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband was withdrawn by him for the reasons best known to him. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, short stay in her matrimonial home certainly goes to show that it was on account of cruel attitude of the husband otherwise there was no reason for newly wedded wife to go to her parental home. It is fear in the mind of petitioner-wife which had forbidden her from going to her matrimonial home. 11. The learned trial Court has observed that in case the petitioner-wife continues to live with her husband, her life would be in danger. Though, she was forced to reside in her parental home, she apprehended that in case she goes to her husband she would be subjected to more cruelty by him. She also deposed about giving of beatings to her by her husband under intoxication. Thus findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the petitioner-wife has been able to prove that the circumstances and the relation between the husband and wife have reached to such an extent that there was strong presumption in the mind of the petitioner-wife that in case she is forced to reside with the husband, the consequences of the same would be bad; do not suffer from any illegality and the same is, hereby, affirmed. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is ordered that the same be dismissed with no orders as to costs.