JUDGMENT (D.S.R. Varma, J.) Since the matter is heard at length and in detail, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal, at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 13-9-2007, passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, allowing the petition F.C.O.P. NO.56 of 2006, filed under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking for dissolution of marriage and to grant divorce. 3. Appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife in the O.P., before the Court below. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant and the respondent will be referred to as "the husband" and "the wife" respectively. 5. The Court below, having considered the entire material, including the evidence, Doth oral and documentary, available on record, passed the impugned order, granting decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage between the wife and the husband. Aggrieved by the same, the husband preferred the present appeal. 6. It appears, both the husband and the wife are highly educated. Their marriage was performed in the month of February, 2003, and, after marriage, the couple left for Australia and for few months, they lived together. It is alleged by the wife that the husband started demanding more dowry; that he developed illicit intimacy with another lady by name Deepa and started ignoring her and that, subsequently, he brought the wife to India and left at her parents house. 7. It is the further contention of the wife that the husband was leading illicit life with some other woman and also causing hurdles to prosecute her post-graduation in Engineering at Australia, while insisting for additional dowry. Therefore, she was forced to lodge a complaint and the same was registered as C.C. NO.381 of 2005 under Section 498-A I.P.C., and the same is still pending. 8.ln order to substantiate her contentions, the wife examined herself as P.W.1, her father as P.W.2 and one N.S. Kesavulu Naidu as P.W.3 on her behalf and on behalf of the husband none was examined and no documents were marked. 9. 8.ln order to substantiate her contentions, the wife examined herself as P.W.1, her father as P.W.2 and one N.S. Kesavulu Naidu as P.W.3 on her behalf and on behalf of the husband none was examined and no documents were marked. 9. It is the evidence of the wife, P.W.1, that her marriage with the husband was performed in the year 2003; that she was left at her parents house by the husband after she was brought from Australia, as such, she could not prosecute her post-graduation course in Engineering at Australia and that she spent a considerable amount towards fees in order to prosecute the post-graduation course in Engineering at Australia. Notwithstanding this, the husband started demanding more dowry. Therefore, she was forced to lodge a complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C., which was registered as C.C. No.381 of 2005. 10. Obviously, the grounds for dissolution of marriage, as sought for by the wife, are (1) desertion, (2) cruelty and (3) demanding more dowry. 11. P.W.1 deposed that the husband had been leading illicit intimacy with another woman at Australia and also demanding more dowry and after bringing her from Australia to India he deserted her by leaving at her parents house. The criminal case filed by her is still pending. 12. P.W.2 the father of P.W.1 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. 13. P.W.3, who is an independent witness, tried to restore the marital relationship between the wife and the husband. He also deposed to the effect that when property was not given to the husband he used to ill-treat the wife. 14. From the proceedings of the Court below, it is obvious that in spite of the opportunities being given to the husband to examine the witnesses of his own, he did not make any attempt in that regard. No witness was examined on behalf of the husband to substantiate his case. Further, when P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the wife, he did not even choose to cross-examine them. From the docket proceedings, which have been pressed into service before this Court, it is clear that when the Court below gave an opportunity to the husband to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 3, he stated that he was not prepared to cross-examine them and any order, suitable, may be passed by the Court. 15. From the docket proceedings, which have been pressed into service before this Court, it is clear that when the Court below gave an opportunity to the husband to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 3, he stated that he was not prepared to cross-examine them and any order, suitable, may be passed by the Court. 15. Consequently, the matter was reserved for orders and, eventually, the impugned order was passed in favour of the wife granting the relief of divorce. 16. This conduct on the part of the husband, which is apparent from the record, only shows that he was really not interested to lead the matrimonial life with the wife. His appearance in the Court and filing the counter in the O.P., appears to be absolutely formal steps. Least minimum attempt had been made by him to substantiate his case. His case was obviously, total denial of all the material averments made by the wife' in the O.P. 17. As already noticed, the three grounds for divorce, which were taken by the wife, are (1) desertion, (2) cruelty and (3) demanding additional dowry and have been spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3. But, there was no cross-examination at all in spite of the opportunity being given by the Court below to the husband, as could be seen from the docket proceedings. 18. But, it is rather unfortunate that in the memorandum of grounds of appeal, ground No.5 is to the effect that the Court below did not give proper opportunity to the husband to adduce evidence. But, the proceedings recorded by the Court below are otherwise. It was categorically recorded by the Court below, on 15-6-2007, as follows:- "Cross of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.Ws.1 to 3 present. Respondent, respondent counsel refused to cross-examine the witnesses and the Court can pass whatever order it wants, it can pass. He was granted time to cross-examine on 17 -4-2007, 1-5-2007 and also on 8-6-2007. In spite of grating three adjournments, the counsel refused to cross-examine the witnesses. Under these circumstances, the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 is closed. For respondent's evidence call on 22-6-2007." 19. But, the husband did not choose to examine anybody on his behalf on subsequent adjournments. He was granted time to cross-examine on 17 -4-2007, 1-5-2007 and also on 8-6-2007. In spite of grating three adjournments, the counsel refused to cross-examine the witnesses. Under these circumstances, the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 is closed. For respondent's evidence call on 22-6-2007." 19. But, the husband did not choose to examine anybody on his behalf on subsequent adjournments. So, the cumulative effect of the conduct of the husband is obviously to avoid the wife and the aspect of cruelty is obvious from the very conduct of the husband, who brought the wife from Australia and just dropped her at her parents house. It is the wife, who paid substantial amount towards fees at Australia for prosecuting her further studies. It is the husband, who demanded more dowry, resulting in filing a criminal case by the wife against him. So, the material averments made by the wife have been substantially proved in the Court below and the husband did not cooperate with the Court proceedings nor was keen in defending his case at all and, in spite of the said conduct, he had taken an uncharitable plea that the Court below failed to give him reasonable opportunity. 20. As already noticed, reasonable opportunities had been accorded by the Court below, which have not been availed of by the husband in a right perspective. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are convinced that the Court below had rightly examined all the issues and also considered the evidence on record, while passing the decree for divorce. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order nor there is, in fact, anything on record to have a second look at the contentions raised by the husband. 22. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.