JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed against the pronouncement recorded by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., on 23.05.2009, in H.M.A. Petition No. 34-N/III/2005, whereby, he refused to annul the marital ties inter se the appellant herein with the respondent herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein is the legally wedded wife of the appellant herein/petitioner. It is pleaded that after her marriage with the petitioner/appellant herein three children were born, who are living with their mother. After the marriage till April, 1998, the relations inter se the litigating parties were cordial, but in the month of April, 1998, the brother of respondent, namely, Kirshan Chand came to the house of the petitioner and he wanted to take the respondent with him. The appellant/petitioner permitted the respondent to accompany her brother and thereafter she never came back. On the contrarily, the respondent had filed a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C., for maintenance, wherein, she was awarded maintenance of Rs.500/- per month. Thereafter, in the year 2001, a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C., was again filed on behalf of the minor children through the respondent against the petitioner. Consequently, maintenance allowance of Rs.300/- per month each was granted n favour of the minor children, and, inspite of best efforts, the respondent refused to join the company of the appellant/petitioner. The appellant/petitioner was employed in the Assam Rifles. The respondent had launched proceedings under Section 498-A, IPC against the petitioner/appellant herein and his relatives just to harass them and Commanding Officer of Assam Rifles terminated the services of the petitioner in December, 2002 and the life of the petitioner has been made hell by the respondent amounting to cruelty It is also alleged that the petitioner had sustained mental as well as physical cruelty at the hands of the respondent. 3. The petition for divorce instituted by the petitioner before the learned District Judge concerned, stood contested by the respondent, by hers instituting a reply thereto, wherein, she controverted all the allegations constituted against her in the apposite petition. It is alleged that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts from the court. The petitioner and his family members had been giving beatings to the respondent on the ground that she did not bring the sufficient dowry and her appearance was also not good. It is alleged that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts from the court. The petitioner and his family members had been giving beatings to the respondent on the ground that she did not bring the sufficient dowry and her appearance was also not good. The petitioner and his family members had cursed the respondent that she had given birth to a female child and also gave beating to the respondent had neglected the respondent and her children, including the newly born child and threatened that the petitioner would marry one Anju Kumari, daughter of Sh. Chuni Lai, resident of Chatter, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. It is pleaded that in pursuance of this, the petitioner with the help of his sister and family members, had eloped with said Anju Kumari and also did not avail two months' leave. It is further pleaded that the respondent was turned out from her matrimonial home. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present petition? OPR 4. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence adduced before the learned District Judge, the latter dismissed the apposite petition. 6. The petitioner for proving the apposite issue, onus, of, proof whereof, was cast upon him, stepped into the witness box as PW-1, and, in his examination-in-chief, he, rendered a testification, in concurrence with the averments, borne in the petition. His testification is lent corroboration by PW-2. The testifications of the aforesaid are not sufficient, for constraining this Court, to record affirmative findings, upon the apposite issue(s). His testification is lent corroboration by PW-2. The testifications of the aforesaid are not sufficient, for constraining this Court, to record affirmative findings, upon the apposite issue(s). The reasons for forming the aforesaid conclusion, ensues from (a) of PW-2 admittedly residing in a locality contradistinct vis-a-vis the matrimonial home of the respondent herein; (b) his acquiescing qua his never visiting the matrimonial home of the respondent; (c) thereupon, it being inevitable to infer of his being unaware of the happenings inside the matrimonial home, of, the respondent, (d) concomitantly his being disabled to firmly disclose whether the petitioner maltreated or meted cruelty upon the respondent; (e) his acquiescing qua the respondent, staying, at her matrimonial home along with her in-laws and brother- in-laws, yet with none of the aforesaid standing examined, whereas, they constituted the best evidence, in support of the apposite averments, cast in the Hindu Marriage Petition, thereupon, the omission of their examination, despite theirs constituting the best evidence, hence constrain an inference, of, the apt omissions being deliberate, for blunting the emanation of truth therefrom. 7. Contrarily, this Court, upon, emergence of cogent proof, hence, impute sanctity to the contentions reared by the respondent, in her reply furnished to the apposite petition, wherein, she espouses of hers rather holding, good, reasonable, and, tangible ground, for not, cohabiting with the petitioner at the latter's home. The apposite ground(s), is, comprised in the petitioner maltreating her, and, also is comprised in the petitioner maintaining, one Anju Kumari, as his mistress. The apt evidence in proof of the aforesaid, is, comprised (a) in a complaint, existing on record, embodying therein commission, of, offences under Section 498 of the IPC, by the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent; (b) recitals occurring in a letter, borne in Ex. R-7, qua the petitioner holding an amorous relationship with another lady. The aforesaid documentary evidence, when read along with the factum of the services of the petitioner being terminated, on account of his contracting an invalid second marriage, hence, lead to a firm conclusion, of, the petitioner perpetrating cruelty, upon, the respondent, during, the period of her stay with the petitioner, at the latter's home, and, also hers hence holding tangible reasons, for, not, cohabiting with the petitioner at her matrimonial home. 8. 8. The above discussion unfolds that the conclusions as arrived by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation, of, the relevant evidence existing on record. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.