JUDGMENT : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Family Court Udaipur in Case No. 162/2005, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the plaintiff-appellant’s divorce petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on 27.08.2008. The petitioner presented her divorce petition on the ground of cruelty stating therein that she was married with respondent on 13.04.2000 at Udaipur and a male progeny was born out of the wedlock on 14/09/2004, both petitioner as well as spouse respondent were employed with Department of Education. It has also been pleaded that the respondent was habitual of beating and abusing his petitioner wife with demand of dowry and used to snatch her salary and she was not being provided with sufficient funds to maintain her son, so was constrained to reside separately from her spouse-respondent and it has also been pleaded that the respondent was a liquor addict, and divorce was solicited on the ground of cruelty. Rebutting the allegations as averred by the petitioner, respondent pleaded in his written statements that the allegations levelled by wife-appellant were baseless and she was not subjected to alleged beating, abuses or demand of dowry by the respondent and it was inter alia pleaded that the respondent never consumed liquor, but he made her appellant wife studied, who without consent of the respondent got herself transferred to Udaipur and always compelled, respondent to get his services transferred to her wish town Udaipur, as well and it has also been pleaded that the respondent preferred a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rights at Pali, which was decreed in his favour ex-parte, but the appellant-wife did not restitute conjugal rights despite decree and has further prayed for dismissal of the petition. 2. Learned Trial Court while framing two issues relating to cruelty and relief tried the matter. Smt. Manju Rajak petitioner submitted her affidavit as well as affidavit of her father Daalchand and one of Smt. Sunder Bai a neighbour, in evidence. 3. Perusal of the evidence shows that vitals have emerged from the cross-examination of this appellant witness as she has said that at the time of her marriage, she was in B.A. final and now B.Ed. She has also said that she did M.A. after B.Ed privately and at that time she was staying with her in-laws. 3. Perusal of the evidence shows that vitals have emerged from the cross-examination of this appellant witness as she has said that at the time of her marriage, she was in B.A. final and now B.Ed. She has also said that she did M.A. after B.Ed privately and at that time she was staying with her in-laws. She has also said that she had got her services transferred without informing to her husband. She has also said that she got salary of April 2004 by demand draft and has also said that at the time of receiving salary, her husband was not present there. She has also said that it is correct that she did not lodge report against alleged dowry harassment. She has also said that she has not submitted the report with the record, she has not produced witnesses Vijay Laxmi and Natwar Lal, whereas she has said that at the time of alleged beating, neighbours Vijay Laxmi and Natwar Lal were present, she has also said that after deduction she was getting Rs.7000 per month towards salary. 4. Daalchand another witness and father of the appellant has also said that her daughter voluntarily got herself transferred to Udiapur. He has also said that the respondent did visit to her spouse after July 2004. He has also said that respondent used to come in the evening and whenever he visited he stayed comfortably. He has also said that the report relating to the cruelty was not filed in the Court and has also accepted that nothing pertaining to alleged F.I.R was pending before the Court. He has also said that Manak Lal had tried to reconcile, but his daughter was not prepared to reside alongwith Manak Lal. He has also said that Manak Lal was ready to stay with her and respondent had wanted Manju to go along for staying in his village, for which his daughter Manju was not ready and she had denied. He has also said that the respondent Manak Lal did not consume liquor before him and has also said that he got his daughter Manju transferred to Udaipur on her say. 5. He has also said that the respondent Manak Lal did not consume liquor before him and has also said that he got his daughter Manju transferred to Udaipur on her say. 5. Smt. Sunder Bai another testimony, a neighbour of Manju’s father has also said that bone of contention between the couple was that respondent wanted her to take back and she was objecting by saying that he was quarrelsome, so she was reluctant to go. She has also said that while the couple resided together, she did not visit to in-laws family of Manju so she is not aware that what way couple resided there and has also said that on the instance of Manju, she was there to depose. 6. On the other side respondent Manak Lal has deposed that Manju wanted him to get his services transferred to Udaipur and he did not ever quarrel with his spouse Manju, neither demanded any dowry and his application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights was decreed by the Pali Court but her spouse did not join conjugal companionship and has denied the allegations. Smt. Ghisi Bai w/o Mangi Lal another defence witness has also said that Manak Lal never perpetrated any cruelty towards his appellant wife and Manak Lal got his wife B.Ed educated, on his expenses and also got her posted near her home District, in order to live peacefully but soon as Smt. Manju got posting, she started pressurizing Manak Lal to get his posting in Udaipur District and stay there with her. He never demanded any dowry. She has also said that she has got her transfer done under the pressure and compulsion of her parents, she too has said that his son is not addicted to liquor nor beaten his wife and did not snatch any salary from her. Another witness Shantilal and Methu Singh have also refuted the allegations of the petitioner-appellant and in cross-examination they have repeated the same and denied any inhuman behaviour with appellant. Another witness deposed by the respondent Laxmi Lal is a retired principal, who too has said that none in the family of Manak Lal was habitual of drinking and he never witnessed him beating his wife and Manak Lal did not subject her wife to cruelty. Another witness deposed by the respondent Laxmi Lal is a retired principal, who too has said that none in the family of Manak Lal was habitual of drinking and he never witnessed him beating his wife and Manak Lal did not subject her wife to cruelty. Likewise in the cross-examination, he has reiterated similar kind of version and has refuted allegations relating to beating. 7. Appellant/petitioner has moved an application for taking additional evidence on record under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C and it has been contended that papers are relevant, which were not in existence during the pendency of the matter and relates to beating given by respondent Manak Lal, which be taken on record for just decision of the case, on the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent Manak Lal has contended that the application is misconceived and alleged FIR is invented and bogus, which was even lodged by one Dalchand, who is not a party to the suit nor these papers are relevant for decision of the lis. Perusal of the appended document relating to F.I.R No.219 dated 19/04/2012, which is lodged at Police Station Hiranmagri Under Section 341, 323 alleges beatings with Dalchand by Manak Lal and the alleged date of beating is also about two years later of the decision and judgment impugned, which does not appear to be relevant to adjudicate the matter under hand, because it relates to the alleged beating on 19/4/2012 with one Dalchand, which is not relevant at all to decide the lis and has got no relation with the matter, hence the application moved by appellant-petitioner under order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C appears to have no force and deserve to be rejected. Consequently the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 is dismissed. 8. Scrutiny and appraisal of the entire evidence shows that petitioner-appellant Manju has miserably failed to adduce any positive evidence with respect to prove alleged cruelty, rather it has emerged from the evidence that she had gone of her own to her parental house and she has admitted not to file any F.I.R on the record. Save positive evidence, “cruelty”, the sole ground of divorce as agitated may not be established, so has not been proved. Learned trial court has elaborately dealt with the evidence of both the sides. Save positive evidence, “cruelty”, the sole ground of divorce as agitated may not be established, so has not been proved. Learned trial court has elaborately dealt with the evidence of both the sides. We are also of the view that the appellant Smt. Manju wife of Manak Lal has failed to succeed in proving her case, so the trial court has rightly decided issues relating thereto against her, hence we do not find any illegality or perversity in the said order. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.