JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act') against the Judgment dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dharwad in M.C.No.338/2019 by which the petition filed by the appellant-wife seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty was dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving raise to filing of this appeal are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 19.05.2005 as per the customs prevailing in their community. The appellant-wife moved to Bengaluru to lead marital life with the respondent-husband. It is averred that the respondent-husband brought the liquor bottle to the house and started drinking daily and the respondent forced the petitioner to get ice cubes from the landlord's house, which was uncomfortable for her, as the men in the landlord's house were not decent. It is also averred that when the appellant objected to get ice cubes or when she objected him from consuming liquor, the respondent used to assault her, abuse her in filthy language and forced the appellant for sexual intercourse without her consent. It is averred that to overcome the depression caused by the respondent-husband, the appellant joined private job and started working. The entire salary used to be paid to the respondent. It is further averred that the younger brother of the respondent had joined the matrimonial home in the month of July 2005 and he also started to consume liquor and both respondent and his brother used to abuse the appellant. The younger brother of the appellant also used to sleep in the same room which has caused more mental trauma to the appellant. It is also averred that during the month of August 2005, the appellant conceived, however, the respondent has never got any good food nor taken care of the appellant and the respondent forced the appellant to work during the pregnancy, she was required to attend job and thereafter attend the household work and additional responsibilities of respondent's brother has caused physical as well as mental cruelty to the appellant. It is pleaded that, during 2008 the appellant had serious health problem of excess bleeding and spine problem and the respondent never took her to the doctor, on the contrary he forced her to do household work. It is pleaded that, during 2008 the appellant had serious health problem of excess bleeding and spine problem and the respondent never took her to the doctor, on the contrary he forced her to do household work. It is further averred that the appellant was once again got conceived for the second time and during this time, the appellant was forced to take care of the child and to attend the needs of respondent. It is also averred that when the brother of the respondent informed the same to the parents of respondent, they neglected this issue and never bothered about the appellant's health. It is pleaded that, during the time of second pregnancy the appellant could not get proper food and after the delivery she was forced to stay in her in-laws house at Hubballi and she was kept in locked room and restricted food and water was provided to the appellant and she was compelled to bring water from the bathroom tap which was the utter cruel and inhuman act of the respondent and his family members. It is further pleaded that, in the year 2016 the respondent decided to shift his family to the Karwar, as he could not maintain his family in Bengaluru and even after shifting to Karwar the respondent started consuming alcohol 24X7 and under the influence of alcohol he used to assault the appellant in front of the children, in front of the neighbours and has caused physical and mental cruelty on the appellant. The respondent never allowed the parents of the appellant to come to the matrimonial home or allowed the appellant to go to her parents house. The respondent without informing the appellant has left matrimonial house taking two kids and left those kids on the beach in the company of lunatic person and he went away from the place and the appellant with the help of his friends came back and started living with her parents in their house, and after 2016 the respondent has not allowed the appellant to see the children has caused mental cruelty to the appellant and sought to dissolution of marriage. 3. Per contra, the respondent-husband has entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections denying the averments made in the petition filed by the appellant seeking for dissolution of marriage. 3. Per contra, the respondent-husband has entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections denying the averments made in the petition filed by the appellant seeking for dissolution of marriage. It is specifically denied allegations of cruelty and denied that the respondent was in the habit of drinking alcohol. It is averred that, it is the appellant who has failed to perform the duty of dutiful wife and used to quarrel with the respondent on silly reasons. The respondent-husband has filed counter claim, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights, wherein, it is specifically averred that, as per the request of the appellant he has made separate house and took a rented house at Karwar, despite the same the appellant has insisted to stay with her parents at Dharwad and left the matrimonial home. It is further averred that, the appellant is adamant lady and never bothered to take care of the children and in the month of September 2016 without giving any intimation to the respondent or his parents, she has left the matrimonial home leaving behind two children with the respondent and started residing with her parents at Dharwad. The appellant has refused conjugal rights to the respondent-husband, has resulted in mental cruelty to him and sought for dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant and sought to grant Judgment and Decree of restitution of conjugal rights by directing the appellant to join the matrimonial house. 4. The Family Court has recorded the evidence. The appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.16. The respondent has not adduced any evidence. Ex.R.1 is marked. The Family Court vide impugned Judgment has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant seeking for dissolution of marriage. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife. 5. Learned counsel Smt. Sunita P. Kalasoor, appearing for the appellant submits that, the family Court has erred in appreciating the material on record and has come to erroneous conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove the ground of cruelty and dismissed the petition. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife. 5. Learned counsel Smt. Sunita P. Kalasoor, appearing for the appellant submits that, the family Court has erred in appreciating the material on record and has come to erroneous conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove the ground of cruelty and dismissed the petition. It is submitted that, the Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent-husband was always under the influence of alcohol and not taken care of the appellant-wife during her stay in the matrimonial home and even during her pregnancy period, these acts of the respondent-husband are cruelty and the said facts were not properly appreciated by the Family Court. 6. It is further submitted that, the Family Court is erred in appreciating the fact that, the respondent-husband though filed statement of objections in the proceedings has failed to adduce any evidence nor made available himself for cross-examination. The Family Court ought to have accepted the pleading and evidence adduced by the appellant as she has properly pleaded and proved the various instances of cruelty and the Family Court has erroneously dismissed the petition. It is also submitted that, the respondent-husband has came to her parents house on 13.02.2016 and took two children by threatening the appellant and her parents, and the appellant was under the shock and dilemma. The appellant could not file the police complaint as the well-wishers and family members have advised that it will harm the reputation of the family in the society as the parents of the appellant is working as employee in the University. It is submitted that, in the proceedings of Domestic Violence Act, the Court has directed to allow the appellant to meet his children, however, the respondent-husband has not allowed her to meet the children and she was in a fond hope that things would improve, but the respondent has not changed his attitude. Hence, he was compelled to approach the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage. 7. Though the respondent is served, remained absent and placed ex-parte. Even before the Family Court the respondent-husband has not entered the witness box making him available for cross-examination. Hence, he was compelled to approach the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage. 7. Though the respondent is served, remained absent and placed ex-parte. Even before the Family Court the respondent-husband has not entered the witness box making him available for cross-examination. The appellant-wife has made specific assertion and instances of cruelty like the respondent-husband was always in the state of drunkenness, he used to abuse the appellant, without consent used to force for sexual intercourse, no conducive atmosphere in the matrimonial home, the appellant's brother joined the matrimonial home who was a bachelor and was sleeping in the same room, during the pregnancy the respondent-husband has not taken care of the appellant-wife nor provided proper food and medicine, in 2008 when serious health issues were faced by the appellant, the respondent has not taken her to the Doctor, after second delivery the appellant was compelled to stay with the in-laws house at Hubballi and they have locked in one room, not provided proper food, drinking water, they made her to drink tap waters from bathroom and other instances of cruelty are pleaded and are reiterated in the evidence of P.W.1. The Family Court has disbelieved the version of the appellant-wife stating that, the statements on oath on the appellant are exaggerated versions of the instances of cruelty. On close scrutiny of the evidence on record it is evident that the appellant-wife has narrated the instances of cruelty for a period of 11 years from the date of marriage till she started residing with her parents house. The allegations of cruelty are consistent and specific in nature. The allegations of cruelty like the respondent-husband was always in drunken state, not provided food and daily requirements of the family need, not taken care of the wife and children are serious allegations and they are not contraverted by the respondent-husband in his evidence. No doubt the appellant has presented the instances of cruelty in a exaggerated manner, but there is no denial of the instances of cruelty consistently pointed out in her pleading and evidence. The allegations that the brother of the appellant was made to sleep in the same room, the allegation that the appellant was treated inhuman by her in-laws in Hubballi are very serious allegation pleaded and proved in the evidence of the appellant. The allegations that the brother of the appellant was made to sleep in the same room, the allegation that the appellant was treated inhuman by her in-laws in Hubballi are very serious allegation pleaded and proved in the evidence of the appellant. The respondent has cross-examined P.W.1, however, he could not elicitate any admission during the cross-examination and he has failed to adduce any contrary evidence on record, hence, the assertion of cruelty pleaded by the appellant are properly proved in her evidence and the same are admissible and required to be accepted as true in the absence of any contra-evidence of the respondent-husband. The Family Court has tried to assign reasons to each of the allegations of cruelty narrated by the appellant based on the variations found in the evidence of P.W.1. In our considered view the Family Court has committed an error as the respondent-husband has failed to adduce any evidence by denying the assertions of cruelty nor made available himself for the cross-examination and in the absence of any contrary evidence on record, the Family Court ought not to have rejected the evidence of P.W.1 in its entirety. It is also not in dispute that, from 2016 onwards the parties are residing separately and both the children are with the respondent-husband and the respondent-husband has chosen not to participate in this proceeding clearly establishes that the respondent-husband is not interested to lead married life with the appellant-wife. 8. On careful scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence on record, it is evident that the appellant-wife has made specific assertion of cruelty referred supra. Those specific assertions of cruelty are adduced in the form of evidence before the family Court. Despite the cross-examination of PW-1, nothing was elicited by the respondent and the respondent has failed to adduce evidence, which clearly establishes that the allegations are true and the same are not controverted by the respondent by adducing proper evidence before the family Court. 9. In this context, it will be useful to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288 , wherein paragraph No.15 reads as under : "15. 9. In this context, it will be useful to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288 , wherein paragraph No.15 reads as under : "15. Moreover, there was no effective cross-examination made on the plaintiff’s witnesses with respect to factum of execution of sale deed, PW.1 and PW-2 have not been cross examined as to factum of execution of sale deed. The cross-examination is a matter of substance not of procedure one is required to put one’s own version in cross-examination of opponent. The effect of non cross-examination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed. The effect of not cross-examining the witnesses has been considered by this Court in Bhoju Mandal. v. Debnath Bhagat, AIR 1963 SC 1906 . This Court repelled a submission on the ground that same was not put either to the witnesses or suggested before the courts below. Party is required to put his version to the witness. If no such questions are put the court would presume that the witness account has been accepted as held in Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1958 P & H 440." (Emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and another, (1999) 3 SCC 573 held at paragraph No.17 as under : "17. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr.. This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors., AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR 1931 Bom. 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr. held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors., drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box." 10. Keeping in mind the above settled legal position, in the instant case, the respondent-husband has failed to adduce evidence; in the absence of any contra-evidence of respondent, the statement of witness on record is to be taken as true, which has not been disputed by the respondent. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that, the Family Court has committed an error in appreciating pleading, evidence on record, resulted in dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant-wife seeking for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. In view of the reasons assigned we pass the following : ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court Dharwad in M.C.No.338/2019 is set aside. (iii) The marriage between the appellant and respondent solemnized on 19.05.2005 is dissolved by granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.