JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant wife against the order of the learned Family Court, No. 3, Kota passed on 13.12.2017. By this order, the learned Family Court dismissed the Matrimonial Case No. 166/2016 filed u/S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"). 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant wife filed an application u/S. 13 of the Act before the Learned Family Court, No. 1, Kota which came before the learned Family Court No. 3, Kota, after transmission order of the High Court, for disposal. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.6.2000 at Jodhpur. The marriage between them was inter-caste marriage as the appellant is by caste Jangid Brahmin and respondent husband is by caste Rajput. After marriage, the appellant and respondent lived as husband and wife at Kota. Out of their marriage wedlock, two children - one male child, namely Mehul on 7.4.2001 and another female child, namely Kritika on 8.2.2006 were born out. After birth of daughter, respondent husband purchased a Polish Factory in Village Sohankheda, Tehsil Ramganjmandi, District Kota and at that time, the behavior of the respondent husband was very nice. But after that time, he changed his bahaviour and without any cause or reason committed cruelty. He stopped talking to his wife and used to abuse her. His behavior is such that he even snatched and threw her "Mangalsutra". As and when their children were not feeling well, he did not care for them. Respondent husband refused to bear the household expenses and school fee of the children. Respondent husband deserted her and started living at Sohankheda for two years. 3. Respondent in his written statement denied the allegation levelled by appellant and in his special objection contended that appellant left the house without any cause. He also stated that she threatened him to implicate in false cases. He does not want to divorce her. He wants to live with her children. His children were residing with him. Prayer is therefore made that the petition should be dismissed. 4. From the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following issues: 5. During trial, appellant wife examined herself as AW-1, respondent husband examined himself as NAW-1 and Mehul Singh as NAW-2. 6. Learned Family Court vide its judgment dated 13.12.2017 decided Issue Nos. His children were residing with him. Prayer is therefore made that the petition should be dismissed. 4. From the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following issues: 5. During trial, appellant wife examined herself as AW-1, respondent husband examined himself as NAW-1 and Mehul Singh as NAW-2. 6. Learned Family Court vide its judgment dated 13.12.2017 decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 against appellant wife and rejected the petition. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 is illegal, arbitrary and against the material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the birth of Kritika, respondent husband harassed her mentally and physically. He demanded dowry. Respondent husband used to consume liquor and Ganja. It was also submitted that the respondent husband started to live separately at Sohankheda, Tehsil Ramganj Mandi, District Kota and deserted the appellant wife for more than two years. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent husband had gone to the residence of the appellant wife at Talwandi on 04.06.2014 and beat her and also threw her out. The appellant wife registered an FIR against him for this incident. The appellant wife also filed a complaint under Sections 12 and 18 to 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which is pending. It is also submitted that during pendency of divorce petition, respondent husband had forcefully entered into appellant's house and set fire to her Activa Scooty. The appellant wife lodged an FIR No. 286/2015 at Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota in which trial is going on. It is also submitted that a CD, recording of threatening given by the respondent husband, was also submitted before the learned Family Court, but the learned Family Court failed to consider these facts. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Family Court erred in not considering the new facts in the evidence. There is no necessity to amend the petition because the cruelty is continuing offence. He further submitted that each and every event of cruelty cannot be pleaded in the petition. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent husband deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause. There is no necessity to amend the petition because the cruelty is continuing offence. He further submitted that each and every event of cruelty cannot be pleaded in the petition. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the respondent husband deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant clearly stated in her evidence that on 22.06.2014 she was thrown out from the house. Mehul Singh (NAW-2), son of the parties, has also stated in his evidence-that Mummy and Papa, both were living separately from 2014. So, the appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 13.12.2017 be quashed and decree of divorce may be granted in favour of the appellant. 10. No one is present on behalf of the respondent to argue the case. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the appellant, perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 12. The appellant wife had not proved that respondent husband had changed his behavior after the birth of Kritika. The appellant wife failed to prove any specific incident in which respondent quarreled with her. The allegation of not talking to her for many days does not amount to cruelty. It is admitted fact that the respondent was doing business at Sohankheda, therefore he used to stay there. For stay at another place for business purpose does not prove that the respondent husband deserted the appellant wife. The learned Family Court in its order clearly stated that there was variation in pleadings and proofs. The appellant in her pleadings had not mentioned the incident of her being thrown out of home and initiation of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. She had not narrated in the pleadings that the respondent husband forcefully entered into the house and set fire to the Activa. The appellant wife could have amended her petition for these incidents but she had not amended the petition accordingly. So, the learned Family Court rightly rejected the evidence which were without pleadings. The appellant wife alleged that the respondent did not care their children but she had not asked any question to her son Mehul in his cross-examination. Mehul in his statement stated that he was residing with his father. It is crystal clear that the respondent cared his children firmly. The appellant wife alleged that the respondent did not care their children but she had not asked any question to her son Mehul in his cross-examination. Mehul in his statement stated that he was residing with his father. It is crystal clear that the respondent cared his children firmly. There was improvement in appellant's statement because she had not mentioned about the CD of threatening in FIR. Appellant's father and Mangal Pandey were eye-witnesses but appellant failed to produce them. The learned Family Court in its order clearly stated that the appellant and respondent, both lived together upto January, 2014. Both were living separately from 26.08.2012 is not proved. In these circumstances, the learned Family Court rightly dismissed the petition. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be rejected. 13. Accordingly, the appeal as well as stay application is dismissed. 14. Parties shall bear their own costs.