T. MEENA KUMARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS C. M. A. is directed against the order of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam dated 7-1-1998 made in O. P. No. 127 of 1998 allowing the O. P. and dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the wife. The respondent-husband filed the above O. P. under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (for short, the Act) for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. ( 3 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the O. P. are as follows:- The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 24-5-1989 and the marriage was consummated. Immediately after the marriage, the appellant joined the respondent and lived with him in his house happily. The respondent has been working as causal welder in Hindustan Shipyard limited at Visakhapamam. it is stated in the petition that they lived together happily for about two months after the marriage and thereafter the appellant did not like to live with him and used to pick up silly quarrels and used to ill treat and insult him before others for no fault of his. Thereafter, it is stated, the appellant went to her parent s house for Ashadam and after Ashadam, the respondent brought the appellant to his house and both of them lived together for one month. It is stated that even during the said short period, the appellant abused him in foul and filthy language and never treated him with love and affection and harassed him on petty issues. The appellant was demanding to convert himself to Christianity. It is also stated that she also demanded for separate residence leaving behind his dependants. The respondent refused for the same, as he is the only breadwinner for his family and bore all the harassment meted out to him. It is also stated that all of a sudden, without informing him, the appellant left the matrimonial house to her parents house and when the respondent approached the appellant and asked her to accompany him, the appellant as well as her parents refused, it is also stated that several mediations through elders to bring her into his fold proved futile and she refused to join him. It is also stated that on one occasion when the husband of his sister requested the appellant to come to King George Hospital to see the respondent who was on bed in the state of unconsciousness due to the accident by current shock in the year 1992, the appellant refused, it is stated that thus the appellant neglected and deserted him. It is also stated that -the appellant filed a maintenance case in 1991 which was ordered. As there is no possibility of the parties coming together, he issued a legal notice on 28-1-1996 to the appellant to consent for obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent, but the appellant did not give any reply therefor. Hence the O. P. ( 4 ) THE appellant contested the above O. P. by filing counter affidavit denying and disputing the material allegations levelled against her. It is stated that after the marriage both of them lived together happily for some time and thereafter the respondent started harassing her with ulterior motive of meeting his illegal and unlawful demands of dowry. It is stated that when she expressed her inability of fulfil his demands, she was beaten black and blue and necked out from the house. It is stated that ever since then she is residing with her widowed mother, it is stated that when the respondent did not respond to the lawyer s notice issued by her, she was constrained to file a case for maintenance before the VII M. M. Court, Visakhapamam, which was ordered granting a maintenance of Rs. 250/ -. Even during the maintenance proceedings, the respondent did not file any petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is stated that the respondent used to ill- treat and harass her during the period of stay. It is stated that the petition lacks bona fides and is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) BEFORE the Court below, the respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and two other witnesses as P. Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked exs. P-1 and P-2. The appellant herein examined herself as R. W. 1 and another witness as R. W. 2 and no documents were marked on her behalf. ( 5 ) BEFORE the Court below, the respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and two other witnesses as P. Ws. 2 and 3 and got marked exs. P-1 and P-2. The appellant herein examined herself as R. W. 1 and another witness as R. W. 2 and no documents were marked on her behalf. ( 6 ) THE Court below, on a consideration of the entire material on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the O. P. dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved wife. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the validity of the impugned order, contended that the Court below failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective and came to erroneous conclusions, notbased on evidence and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. The, learned counsel also contended that the respondent herein failed to prove the ingredients of Sec. 13 (1) (ia) of the Act and hence the respondent is not entitled to the relief prayed for by him. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the Court below by contending that it is a well reasoned one. ( 9 ) FROM the above rival contentions, the issue to be considered is whether the respondent is able to prove any of the grounds urged by him for dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce. ( 10 ) THE respondent as P. W. 1 deposed that his wife was a converted Christian, that she was forcing him to covert to Christianity for which he refused, that in the year 1989 she left to her parents house for Ashadam and returned and lived with him for two or three months and thereafter left the matrimonial house without his knowledge and without informing him. His evidence also goes to show that the respondent started quarrelling with him for separate residence for which he refused. Thereafter, he issued ex. P-1, notice to the appellant, which she received under Ex. P-2 acknowledgement. P. W. 1 also stated in his evidence that the appellant did not attend the funeral ceremony of his material aunt. However, he denied the suggestion that he used to beat her black and blue. Thereafter, he issued ex. P-1, notice to the appellant, which she received under Ex. P-2 acknowledgement. P. W. 1 also stated in his evidence that the appellant did not attend the funeral ceremony of his material aunt. However, he denied the suggestion that he used to beat her black and blue. ( 11 ) P. W. 2 who also claims to be the brother-in-law s son of P. W. 1, also speaks about the appellant leaving to her parents house during Ashadam. According to him, the appellant used to frequent her parents house and when she was asked to come back, she expressed to have a separate family. ( 12 ) P. W. 3, one N. Achaladevi, who happens to be the natural mother of the respondent, deposed that she did not observe any quarrels between the appellant and the respondent even though the appellant was frequently going tj ner parents house. She further deposed that they tried to compromise between the appellant and the respondent through elders. ( 13 ) THE appellant as R. W. 1, on the other hand, deposed that the respondent used to demand her and her mother for getting more money and when they expressed their inability to fulfil his requests, he used to beat her black and blue. She further stated that she was taken to her parents house for Ugadi festival and he did not come back to see her. Subsequently, she got issued a lawyer s notice claiming maintenance and as there was no response from the respondent, she filed a case for maintenance which ended in her favour granting maintenance at the rate of rs. 250/- p. m. She also stated that during the pendency of the said maintenance proceedings, the respondent never tried to take her into his fold nor filed any petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Though the respondent made an allegation in the petition that on one occasion when the respondent s sister requested the appellant to come to king George Hospital to see the respondent who was hospitalized due to accident by current shock in the year 1992, she refused to come, there is absolutely no evidence forthcoming on this aspect. Even P. W. 1 did not speak anything on this aspect. Even P. W. 1 did not speak anything on this aspect. ( 14 ) EVEN with regard to the mediations said to have taken place between parties, no mediators were examined to prove the said fact. Even the names of the alleged mediators or the members who participated in the panchayat are not given. Though so many allegations were made in the petition by the respondent, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the same. What is more, P. W. 3 has in categorical terms stated that she did not observe any quarrels between the appellant and the respondent even though the appellant was visiting her parents house. However, the Court below, contrary to the pleadings and the evidence, observed as follows:"if we closely observe for arguments sake if we make a critical analysis and the observation of the person the respondent is found without thali which is an insignia for a Hindu woman whose husband is alive, he might have felt her as inauspicious to see her like that while coming to face him. "it is not the case of the respondent that the appellant left him without any thali or that she has removed her thali. In the cross- examination of R. W. 1, the appellant herein, it has been observed that she was wearing a turmeric thread on her neck without a thali. In the absence of any pleading and evidence to the effect that she has removed the thali, the above observation/finding of the Court below is without any basis and it is illegal. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence to the effect that the appellant deserted the respondent or that she treated him cruelly, the Court below ought not to have dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce. Even the evidence on record goes to show that she was taken to her parents house for Ugadi festival by the respondent and thereafter he did not take her back to the matrimonial house. The evidence also goes to show that there are no quarrels between the parties as could be seen from P. W. 3. Further, no mediators were examined to show that in spite of several mediations, the appellant refused to join the respondent. The evidence also goes to show that there are no quarrels between the parties as could be seen from P. W. 3. Further, no mediators were examined to show that in spite of several mediations, the appellant refused to join the respondent. Judged in any view of the matter, respondent failed to prove that he is entitled to the relief prayed for by him on any of the grounds urged by him. Thus, the order of the Court below allowing the O. P. and dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. ( 15 ) IN the result, the C. M. A. is allowed and the order of the Court below made in o. P. No. 127 of 1996 dated 7-1-1998 is set aside and the O. P. stands dismissed. No costs.