JUDGMENT S.C. Pandey, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.1.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 43-A of 1993. The Court below has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. 2. The appellant filed a petition for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. It was claimed by the appellant that he had married the respondent on 1.2.1990 at Champa, according to Hindu rites. Thereafter, they cohabited together for about VA months. However, the respondent did not want to live in the joint Hindu family house alongwith the appellant and, therefore, demanded that the appellant should live with her in a separate house. Thereafter, she also treated the appellant with cruelty and did not behave with him properly. She threatened that she shall commit suicide. In the year 1990 she had gone back to her father and she had stated that the appellant was of a bad character. On these grounds, the divorce petition was filed by the appellant. 3. The respondent, on the other hand, denied the claim of the appellant in toto. It was stated by the respondent that she had never treated the appellant with cruelty or had made any demand for a separate house. She also denied that she threatened to commit suicide. According to the respondent, two facts were that the appellant was habituated of gambling and that he was of a bad character. The respondent claimed that she had been sent to her father's, home for last three years. However, the respondent did not want that the appellant should get a decree of divorce to be granted to him. It was also stated by the respondent by way of specific statement that her brother had married the sister of the appellant, and the sister of the appellant had gone away to her father's home after quarrelling with the brother of the respondent. 4. The Trial Court found that it was not proved that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty. It was also found that the respondent did not desert the appellant for last three years and, therefore, the petition was dismissed by the Court below. 5. 4. The Trial Court found that it was not proved that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty. It was also found that the respondent did not desert the appellant for last three years and, therefore, the petition was dismissed by the Court below. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the appellant was unable to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty. The evidence of the petitioner's witness P.W. 1, Ramkumar does not prove the case of the appellant that the respondent was treating him with cruelty. The evidence on record is so meagre that it is not possible to pass a decree on the alleged grounds of cruelty and desertion. On the other hand, it appears that the respondent has been sent back to her father's home on account of the fact because her brother, Deepak had left the sister of the appellant. It is specifically stated by the appellant in paragraph 6 of his deposition that the brother of the respondent, namely, Deepak had remarried despite the first marriage. Be it as it may, the grounds on which the appellant wanted to seek divorce, have not been established and, therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition of the appellant for divorce. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.