In a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the petitioner must prove the grounds for divorce by providing specific allegations and evidence.

P. K. Palli, J.:- This is wifes appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Una, whereby her petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stands declined.

2. The admitted position is that the parties were married as back as 1973 and they have three daughters out of the wedlock, quite grown up with ages 19, 17 and 15 years respectively when the decision was made in the year 1994 and now two years to each one can further be added to their respective ages.

2. A divorce was sought on the twin ground of desertion and cruelty. It was pleaded that after the birth of the daughters, the respondent-husband started doubting her character and used to give beatings regularly. It is also stated that in this position her living with the husband became impossible. The appellant was not even matriculate at the time of her marriage and the husband too had not even passed out the middle standard examination. The appellant-wife in the interest of their married life and children, thought of improving her educational qualifications and consequently passed matriculation, Prabhakar and then L.T. from a private institute at Jallundhar, and according to her the expenses for this were made available by her father. As no job was available in the State of Himachal Pradesh, she sought employment in a school at Abohar, in the year 1989. It is her case that ever since the year 1984 she has been consistently visiting the husband but he refused to have sexual relation with her and thus had withdrawn from her society. The children are said to have been turned out in the year 1992 and ever since then they are living with their mother that is the appellant.

3. In reply, the case of the respondent is that the educational expenses were borne by him and not by the father of the wife. She, of course, went to Jallundhar to improve her educational qualifications. The children all this time have been living with him and they were taken away by the wife in the year 1992. According to the husband, he has not withdrawn from the society of the petitioner nor ever, treated her with cruelty and never doubted her character nor such type of allegations were ever made by him against her.

4. The petition was tried by the learned Court on these twin grounds and the burden of proof lay on the appellant-wife. The learned trial Court held both these issues against the appellant-wife and preceded to non-suit her as she had failed to prove both these assertions.

5. While assailing the judgment passed by the learned Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that the very fact that the husband has refused to cohabit with the wife and that he had turned out even the daughters, prove this fact that he has deserted her and, the marriage stands broken.

6. We have been taken through the evidance placed on record in this respect. The statement of the wife recorded as PW-1, does not even remotely, makes out any case of desertion on the part of the husband. Regarding non-cohabitation, she has not said even a word in that respect and thus no -case of desertion stands made out. In our view, if we read the statement then an impression is created that the fault lay with the and it is she who appears to have deserted the husband, may be on account of the change in her status after. the wedding. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. Though the wife has been living away from the husband since 1984, the three daughters have been living with their father and in case he was beating. the daughters, also, then they would not have stayed with him. The daughters are quite grown up and in young age they would have even resisted any maltreatment meted out to their mother by their father. The learned Counsel is thus not correct in her submission that desertion is proved on the record on the part of the husband.

7. Coming to the second point, which arises in this case in respect of cruelty,. that too carries no force.