JUDGMENT Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J. - Both these appeals have been filed by the appellant- wife against the order dated 30.1.2017 passed by Family Court, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No.1031/2014 whereby the learned family court dismissed the application under Section 13(1) (A) Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant and allowed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-husband. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 8.5.2014. No issue was born to them after the marriage. After marriage, the appellant-wife came to know that respondent consumes wine, smack and respondent-husband was having illicit relations with various ladies and also torturing her physically and mentally for sexual intercourse. Her husband demanded Rs.2 lakhs for work in Mumbai and on showing in-capabilities she was beaten. When she said that her parents are poor and have spent more than their capacity then her husband and his family members were giving her beatings and threatened to kill her. Till after one month and 15 days of the marriage behaviour of respondent and his family members remained unchanged and demanding motor cycle and cash in dowry then she said to her parents, upon which in the month of June 2014 they convened panchayat at her matrimonial house wherein the respondent and their family members accepted their mistake and assured not to torture the appellant for dowry in future. After some time her husband and his family members again started demanding dowry. Her husband used to come in intoxicated condition in the night and brutally beat and abused her and on 29.7.2017 her husband and his family members gave her beating for demand of motor cycle and in the night they expelled her from the house. The parents of the appellant by convening panchayats two - three times tried to settle the dispute and on 24.8.2014 panchayat was convened at her parental house but in that panchayat her husband and his family members were adamant for their demand of dowry and threatened for second marriage of her husband. On demand of stridhan, they refused to return the same and since 29.7.2014 the appellant is living at her parental house. 3. On demand of stridhan, they refused to return the same and since 29.7.2014 the appellant is living at her parental house. 3. Thereafter the appellant-wife filed an application under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court, Sri Ganganagar and another application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent-husband. 4. The appellant-wife and respondent-husband filed their respective replies to the aforesaid applications and they denied all the facts of the respective applications and respondent-husband stated that behaviour of the appellant-wife after the marriage was quarrelsome and she without any plausible reason quarreling with the respondent and his family members on petty issues. In the panchayat convened on 24.8.2014, the respondent-husband shown his readiness and willingness to keep the appellant being wife but the appellant-wife was not ready to live with respondent being wife and threatened to lodge a false case of dowry. The appellant lodged a criminal case against the respondent which is pending. It is further stated by the respondent-husband that the appellant-wife left his house in his absence and carried the stridhan without any plausible reason. 5. In reply to the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife has stated that the respondent is person of debauchery nature and addict of inebriated. The respondent was torturing physically and mentally to the appellant. The respondent was not allowing the appellant to go her parental house and while showing the vulgar pictures and films trying to commit sexual intercourse as per the film. The respondent-husband levelled false allegations against the appellant. The respondent and his family members on 29.7.2014 demanded motor cycle and on not fulfilling the demand gave beating and expelled from house at 2:30 a.m. in the night. The appellant did not bring any stridhan, the stridhan is with the respondent and his family members. The appellant is not ready to live being wife with the characterless and addict person in any condition. 6. The appellant did not bring any stridhan, the stridhan is with the respondent and his family members. The appellant is not ready to live being wife with the characterless and addict person in any condition. 6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, learned family court framed the following issues :- 1 & vk;k vkosfndk lqeu vukosnd fot; dqekj ds fo:) muds e/; fnukad 08-05-2014 dks vuq"Bkfir fookg dks fookg&foPNsn ;kfpdk esa of.kZr vuqlkj vukosnd }kjk vkosfndk lqeu ds lkFk dh xbZ dzwjrk ds vk/kkj ij fookg&foPNsn dh fMdzh }kjk fo?kfVr djk ikus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ vkosfndk 2 & vk;k vukosnd fot;dqekj ds viuh iRuh ls fHkUu vU; vkSjrksa ls uktk;t lEcU/k gSa] ;fn ,slk gS rks ;kfpdk ij D;k vlj gS\ vkosfndk 3 & vk;k vkosfndk lqeu o vukosnd fot;dqekj ds e/; rykd dh fMdzh ysus ckcr~ jkthukek gks x;k gS] ;fn ,slk gS rks ;kfpdk ij D;k vlj gS\ vukosnd 4 & vk;k ;kph fot; dqekj v;kph lqeu ds fo:) nkEiR; vf/kdkjksa dh iquLFkkZiuk ;kfpdk esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij nkEiR; vf/kdkjks dh iquLFkkZiuk dh fMdzh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ;kph 5 vuqrks"k\ 6. The learned family court vide judgment dated 30.1.2017 decided the issues No.1, 2 and 4 in favour of respondent-husband and against the appellant-wife and issue No.3 was decided against the husband and dismissed the application filed by the appellant-wife under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act and allowed the application of the respondent- husband filed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant- wife that the learned family court has committed grave error apparent on the face of record as well as law while passing the judgment and decree despite the fact that the appellant by her evidence has amply proved before the learned court below that she has subjected to cruelty and unreasonable desertion despite the fact that the learned court below has dismissed the divorce petition vide judgment impugned. 9. 9. It is further contended that learned family court has committed an illegality in deciding the issues No.1 and 2 against the appellant-wife despite the fact that the appellant-wife in her statement has specifically stated on oath before the learned family court that after the marriage on telling by the respondent himself, she came to know that the respondent is addict of wine and smack and for demand of dowry he was committing the cruelty with the appellant, but learned family court while declining the statements of the appellant has dismissed the divorce petition vide judgment impugned. 10. It is also contended that the learned family court has committed grave error apparent on the face of record as well as law while allowing the application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent-husband. It is contended that the learned family court merely on the basis of the pleadings of the respondent made in the application has passed the judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal rights holding the appellant responsible for desertion of the respondent despite the fact that the respondent husband was committing cruelty for demand of dowry and compelling the appellant to perform sexual intercourse with him as per blue films. The appellant refused to do so then on 29.7.2014 the respondent expelled the appellant from the house. 11. In view of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the present appeals may kindly be allowed and the application under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant before the family court may kindly be allowed and the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent before the family court may kindly be rejected. 12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed all the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that no any error has been committed by the family court while passing the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2017. The family court has rightly decided all the issues and has passed the impugned order after considering all the material and evidence available on record. The family court has rightly decided all the issues and has passed the impugned order after considering all the material and evidence available on record. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the application under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant has rightly been rejected and the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent has rightly been allowed by the family court, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in these misc. appeals. 13. Upon perusal of record, it is admitted that marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 8.5.2014 and divorce petition was filed on behalf of the appellant-applicant on 28.11.2014, it proves that divorce petition has been filed after 6/ months of the marriage, but provisions of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act provide that "No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage". In these circumstances, the application filed by the appellant is premature and is not maintainable according to the provisions of law. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned trial court has wrongly admitted the divorce petition filed by the appellant. 14. Apart from this, upon perusal of record, it is also revealed that the respondent Vijay Kumar filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 29.8.2014 and according to the order sheet dated 1.11.2014, the appellant herself present in the court and sought adjournment for filing reply. Thereafter on 28.11.2014, the appellant-applicant filed application under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act which shows that the appellant-applicant filed divorce petition in defence of application filed by the respondent under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. 15. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, upon perusal of the record it reveals that the appellant-applicant levelled several allegations against the respondent and a specific averment has been made by the appellant-applicant that she and her family members called panchayat of society two-three times but not a single member has been produced in evidence on behalf of the appellant to prove the allegations. 16. 16. The appellant also levelled allegation that the respondent Vijay Kumar brutally beaten the appellant so many times, but no FIR has been lodged regarding any incident and neither any injury report has been prepared by the appellant- applicant, nor any oral evidence has been produced by the appellant-applicant about these allegations. 17. Upon perusal of pleadings and evidence of appellant- applicant, we are of the opinion that the appellant-applicant has utterly failed to prove any allegation levelled by her against the respondent. 18. Upon perusal of pleading and evidence of appellant, she herself in her cross-examination has clearly stated that 'kknh esjh bPNk ds vuqlkj gqbZ Fkh esjh bPNk ds fo:) ugha gqbZ FkhA eSa fdlh Hkh lwjr esa vizkFkhZ ds lkFk ugha jguk pkgrh gwaA . In reply to the application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, she clearly stated that vizkFkhZ;k fdlh Hkh dher ij ulsM+h] pfj=ghu O;fDr ds lkFk iRuh ds :i esa fuokl djus ds fy, dHkh Hkh fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa rS;kj ugha g S it proves that the appellant-applicant is not willing to live with the respondent. It is also clear by pleading of respondent and his affidavit that the appellant-applicant left his house in absence of respondent and without any sufficient reason she is living at her parent's home on her will. It was the duty of the appellant to prove the allegations levelled by her against respondent, but she has failed to prove the same. 19. In view of above discussions, we are satisfied that the finding given by the family court is based on material available on record. The learned family court has neither misread any evidence available on record nor overlooked any evidence available on record and has given sound reasoning on its finding. Therefore, the learned family court has not erred in deciding the issues No.1, 2 and 4 against the appellant and in favour of respondent-Vijay Kumar and has rightly rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and also has rightly allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 20. In view of above discussions, no case for interference is made out to disturb the finding of the impugned judgment, hence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.