JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 lays a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2017, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganganagar, whereby appellant's petition for divorce has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated, the facts for the present purposes are that the appellant Preeti filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, enumerated in Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant, who got married with the respondent on 28.4.2010 as per Hindu rituals, started living at Ward No. 6, Sardulshahar, pleaded in the petition that though she had been discharging her marital obligations properly, but the respondent-husband and his other family members started harassing her as she had not brought dowry as per their expectation. It was also averred that the respondent and his relatives coerced her to bring a sum of Rs. 1 lac, and on his father's failure to fulfill their unjustified demand, the annoyed respondent and his family members had beaten her. It had also been pleaded that the respondent wanted the appellant to bring the money, which she had given to her parents out of the salary she received from the government job. 3. In response to the petition for divorce so filed by the appellant, the respondent husband filed a written statement and denied all the allegations levelled against him. The respondent stated that the appellant-wife is egoist and quarrelsome in nature, who wanted to get rid of him in bid to marry another person. The respondent specifically denied the allegation of beating and harassing her for dowry, while maintaining that the appellant is cantankerous in nature. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues: ^^¼1½ vk;k v;kph ds fo:/n muds e/; fnukad 28-04-2010 dks vuq”Bkfir fookg dks ;kfpdk esa of.kZr vuqlkj v;kph }kjk ;kph ds lkFk dh xbZ Øwjrk ds vk/kkj ij fookg foPNsn dh fMØh }kjk fo?kfVr djk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS% \ ;kph ¼2½ vuqrk”k\ 5. With a view to prove her case, the appellant filed her affidavit, which was essentially reproduction of her pleadings. With a view to prove her case, the appellant filed her affidavit, which was essentially reproduction of her pleadings. It is pertinent that during the cross-examination, she accepted that her present place of posting is at Ellenabad, Haryana and she found it difficult to come to her in-law's place at Sardulshahar for want of permission to remain away of the headquarters. 6. The appellant's father also appeared as witness to support her case; during the course of cross-examination he unequivocally admitted that neither he nor his daughter Preeti has ever lodged any case of dowry or harassment against the respondent-husband. It has also been admitted that his daughter Preeti has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 7. It is noteworthy that during the course of cross-examination, Dilip, the appellant's father had conceded that the appellant finds it difficult to frequently come to Sardulshahar and precisely for this reason, she wanted dissolution of her marriage. 8. The learned Court below after appreciating the material and evidence on record decided the issue No. 1 against the appellant while observing that the appellant had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty. The learned Court below has recorded a finding that the appellant had not led any evidence, for which it could reach to a conclusion that the respondent has committed cruelty of such nature that would require dissolution of the marriage between the rival parties. While discussing the evidence, the family Court has observed that appellant's elder sister Poonam, who was married to the brother of the respondent Jai Narayan, namely, Praveen, is living happily after her marriage and there is no dispute of dowry between them. 9. Learned family Court also held that the allegations of beating levelled by the appellant are not specific and more so, they have not been proved by way of leading evidence; neither any dates have been mentioned in the petition nor specific incidents have been divulged during evidence. 10. Questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2007, passed by the learned Family Court, Mr. Sushil Bishnoi contended that the appellant-wife had pleaded and proved beyond doubt that the respondent-husband was guilty of cruelty; for which her petition for divorce deserved acceptance. 10. Questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 3.7.2007, passed by the learned Family Court, Mr. Sushil Bishnoi contended that the appellant-wife had pleaded and proved beyond doubt that the respondent-husband was guilty of cruelty; for which her petition for divorce deserved acceptance. He argued that the cruelty cannot be explained and proved by one incidence and it has to be considered and held proved on the basis of overall behavior of the husband. He argued that it is true that no specific dates and incidents have been mentioned by the appellant, yet the appellant's evidence that the respondent husband used to beat the appellant, besides, ill-treating and harassing her for the dowry, is enough to prove cruelty. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand supported the order passed by the Family Court and while denying all the charges contended that no evidence has been led by the appellant to prove the allegation of cruelty and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the evidence led by the parties. 13. A perusal of the divorce petition filed by the appellant shows that she has levelled allegation of thrashing and bashing, besides accusing him for incessant demand of dowry. If the evidence led by the appellant and her father is taken into account, it transpires that she had not narrated even a single incident of her being beaten by the respondent-husband. The affidavit filed by the appellant simply echos her averments in the plaint; which too are as vague as they could be. Though during the course of her cross-examination, the appellant has maintained her stand and denied all the suggestions made by the respondent's counsel about seeking divorce for other extraneous reasons. But then, we have to weigh the rival evidence and existing circumstances. 14. As against this, evidence led by Jai Narayan suggests that soon after getting married, when the appellant got Government job, she started quarreling with him. The respondent has deposed that the appellant, a quarrelsome lady, did not want to live with him. She had left the matrimonial house on 2-3 occasions and refused to live with him, as she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-, whereas he remained an unemployed youth. The respondent has deposed that the appellant, a quarrelsome lady, did not want to live with him. She had left the matrimonial house on 2-3 occasions and refused to live with him, as she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000/-, whereas he remained an unemployed youth. The respondent has deposed that the appellant does not want to live with him and is seeking divorce for her own whims. He specifically denied any incident of beating, and also denied the allegations of demanding dowry. During the course of cross-examination, the respondent denied the suggestion that he was jealous of the appellant-wife, as she was earning more by way of Government job. The respondent also denied the suggestion that he had asked the appellant to leave the Government job. 15. On behalf of the respondent, his father Krishan Lal appeared in the witness box and supported the case of the respondent. The said Krishan Lal clearly denied the appellant's allegation that respondent Jai Narayan used to drink and beat his wife. He also denied any incident of man-handling by his son. 16. Upon overall appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, we are of the view that the appellant's allegations of cruelty based on assertion of beating and harassment for dowry are not only vague, but are also uncorroborated by evidence. 17. It is true that the cruelty has also been prescribed as a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but then, the cruelty is required to be proved by evidence. The proven cruelty should also be of such extent or gravity, that the Court can conclude that having suffered such cruelty, the victim cannot go alongwith the matrimony. 18. The appellant has failed to prove any incident of beating and demand of dowry, which may amount to cruelty. Her bald allegations are absolutely ambiguous and non-specific. Neither in her pleadings nor in her affidavit, the appellant has narrated any specific case of bashing by the respondent-husband. The appellant has also failed to drive home her allegation of demand of dowry. 19. Having considered the facts and material obtaining in the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Member of the Family Court has committed no error of law in rejecting appellant's petition for divorce. The appellant has also failed to drive home her allegation of demand of dowry. 19. Having considered the facts and material obtaining in the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Member of the Family Court has committed no error of law in rejecting appellant's petition for divorce. Hence, we see no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree, which is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. The appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.