Per :- Arun Monga, J.

1. Appellant-wife is before this Court, being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2023 rendered by learned Family Court, Merta in Civil Misc. (Hindu Marriage Act) Case No.55/2020, whereby her petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage between her and respondent-husband, on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed.

2. Succinctly speaking, the relevant facts of the case for the purpose of adjudication of instant appeal, shorn of the unnecessary details, are as follows:-

2.1. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 27.04.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at Banwara. Appellant alleges that after the marriage, the respondent and his family members treated her with cruelty. The respondent was a habitual drinker, and the appellant was expelled from the matrimonial home within a week of the marriage.

2.2. Thereafter, the respondent and his family members demanded ₹2,00,000 and a motorcycle from the appellant. The appellant informed her parents about the incidents and returned to her matrimonial home on 28.04.2015; however, upon her failure to meet the said demands, she was again subjected to coercion and was forced to leave the house early the next morning.

2.3. Subsequently, the appellant lodged an FIR bearing No. 108/2022 at Police Station Thanwla under Sections 498-A, 323, 342, and 377 IPC. The respondent continued to neglect and harass the appellant.

2.4. On these grounds, the appellant filed a divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage.

2.5. Learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2023 dismissed her petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage.

3. Hence, the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court ignored the evidence on record while adjudicating the appellant’s application, despite the appellant having successfully established that the respondent subjected her to cruelty, including compelling her into physical relations with others, assaulting her, and ultimately expelling her from the matrimonial home.

4.1. It is further submitted that the learned trial court rejected the appellant’s case on the basis of surmises, conjectures, and unwarranted presumptions, despite the fact that the evidence and affidavits produced by the appellant remained undisputed. In such circumstances, the trial court ought to have accepted the appellant’s version. However, it unjustifiably disbelieved her sworn testimony without any cogent reasoning.

4.2. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Family Court committed a grave illegality in disregarding the established fact of physical and mental cruelty, as well as the undisputed desertion of the appellant by the respondent since 2015. These material aspects clearly demonstrate cruelty on the part of the respondent, yet were not properly considered, resulting in the wrongful dismissal of the appellant’s application.

5. Per contra, it is asserted by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent-husband has steadfastly endevoured on multiple occasions to save the marriage. And yet, the appellant-wife would not agree for the same. Therefore, she is the one on the wrong foot, rather committed cruelty on respondent-husband and she cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own wrong.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case filed.

7. The impugned judgment is essentially premised on the reasoning that the burden of proving cruelty and related allegations lay by the appellant. While she alleged dowry demands and physical assault, her testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, with material contradictions regarding the date and circumstances under which she was allegedly expelled from the matrimonial home. The Court further noted that key allegations, including dowry demands, we