JUDGMENT : G. Minhajuddin, J. This appeal has been tiled by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 19(l) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 1st February. 2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 364-A/10, dismissing the application of the appellant/plaintiff tiled under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20-6-2007 at Pandri Raipur as per Hindu customs and ceremony. Thereafter, the parties resided together till 12-102007. It is also No. 1 in dispute that from 1310-2007 to 16-10-2007, the respondent/wife resided at her maternal home and after that, from 17-10-2007 till leaving her matrimonial home on 23-4-2008, that the parties had resided together. However, rest of the facts are disputed. 3. The appellant/plaintiff's case, in brief, is that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20-6-2007 and thereafter, the respondent/defendant resided with him till 12-10-2007. However, from 13-10-2007 till 16-10-2007, the respondent resided at her maternal home from where the appellant brought her back on 17-10-2007. After that the respondent/wife resided with the appellant/husband at her matrimonial home till 22-4-2008. However, on 23-4-2008 the respondent/wife, in the absence of the appellant/husband, without informing him, left the matrimonial home and went away to her maternal home and since then, is residing with her parents, despite all efforts being made by the appellant to bring her back. The relations between the parties, during the period they had stayed together, had been cordial. The appellant/husband is having an aged mother, who is suffering from paralysis, and also an unmarried sister. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent/wife had been demanding that the appellant should leave his mother and sister and live with the respondent alone in a separate house. which was not possible for the appellant, since he has an aged mother suffering from paralysis and an unmarried sister, who are dependent on him. When the appellant refused to accede to the said demand of the respondent/wife, she, without informing the appellant, in his absence, left the matrimonial home on 23-4-2008 and since then, is residing with her parents at her maternal home. The appellant has made all efforts to bring her back but failed. When the appellant refused to accede to the said demand of the respondent/wife, she, without informing the appellant, in his absence, left the matrimonial home on 23-4-2008 and since then, is residing with her parents at her maternal home. The appellant has made all efforts to bring her back but failed. As such, by living separately without just and reasonable cause the respondent/wife has deprived the appellant/husband of his, conjugal rights. In addition to this, the respondent/wife had been giving threats to the appellant/husband, his mother and sister that she will lodge a report against them in connection with demand of dowry and will implicate them. The respondent/wife, in fact, lodged an FIR on 24-4-2008 against the appellant, his mother and sister, after leaving her matrimonial home, at Mahila Thana, Raipur, in connection with demand of dowry. Thereafter, counselling was held at Mahila Thana, Raipur, on 25-4-2008, in which the respondent/wife had refused to live with the appellant/husband and reiterated her demand to live in a separate house with the appellant. The appellant by running a grocery shop earns about Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month, on which the entire family, including mother and unmarried sister of the appellant are dependent. On the demand of the respondent/wife, the appellant had returned all the stridhan at Mahila Thana, Raipur. However, the respondent/wife, in order to compel the appellant/husband to accede to the above mentioned unreasonable demand, is living separately since 23-4-2008 and not it is not possible for both the parties to reside together under the same roof. As such, the respondent/wife by deserting the company of the appellant and living separately has committed cruelty towards him. On this basis, an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was tiled by the appellant/husband before the Family Court. 4. The case of the respondent/wife, in short, is that immediately after marriage, the mother and unmarried sister of the appellant/husband were treating her with cruelty and she was not allowed to sit on the furniture of the house as well as to talk to her husband and they used to pass sarcastic remarks that she is not beautiful etc. The appellant/husband, after coming home in a drunken condition, used to beat her. The appellant/husband, after coming home in a drunken condition, used to beat her. On 23-4-2008, the mother and sister of the appellant were beating her, therefore, to save her life she had left the matrimonial home and went away to her maternal home and thereafter, under the compulsion that she lodged a report at Mahila Thana, Raipur. During the counselling proceedings, the appellant had assured the respondent that he is getting his house constructed and after completion of construction, he will take her back with him, but the appellant after that did not come to take her back. On 23-4-2008, the respondent, under compulsion, had left her matrimonial home in a night gown only and during counselling at Mahila Thana, Raipur, she only demanded her clothes, on which the appellant had returned all her goods at Mahila Thana, which demonstrates that the appellant is not willing to keep her after giving assurances during the counseling that after construction of the house, he (appellant) will take her back along with him. However, after that, the appellant never returned to take her back, but filed a suit for divorce. The respondent/wife is not living at her maternal home without just and reasonable cause, but under the circumstances mentioned above. The respondent/wife has neither deserted the company of the appellant/husband nor has committed cruelty towards him or his family members. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment as also the record of the Family Court. 6. To substantiate the allegations made in the application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant/plaintiff has examined only himself as PW-1. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant, in support of the averments made in the written statement, has examined herself only as DW-1. 7. So far as the allegation of committing cruelty and deserting the company of the appellant/husband by the respondent/wife is concerned, according to the appellant/husband after marriage the respondent/wife resided with him till 12-10-2007 and remained at her maternal home from 13-10-2007 to 16-10-2007 and after that, returned back to her matrimonial home on 17-10-2007. This fact has been admitted by the respondent/wife. This fact has been admitted by the respondent/wife. The appellant/husband (PW-1) has further stated that in his absence on 23-4-2008, the respondent/wife left her matrimonial home, without informing him, and despite all efforts made by him, she had not returned and since then is living at her parents house, thereby committing cruelty towards him and depriving him of his conjugal rights. 8. On the contrary, the respondent/wife has stated she had never left her matrimonial home without permission of the appellant/husband. On 23-4-2008 when, in the absence of the appellant, his mother and unmarried sister were beating her, that she had informed the appellant about the same, but despite that since the appellant had not come to her rescue, therefore, simply to save herself, she had left her matrimonial home, wearing only a night gown and had gone to her parents' house. The respondent/wife has further stated that since 23-4-2008, the appellant/husband had not made any efforts to take her back and when she tried to go back to her matrimonial home, she was not allowed to enter the matrimonial home by the appellant/husband. 9. From perusal of the material on record, it appears that there are allegations and counter allegations made by the parties against each other and there is only oral evidence of the parties on record. In view of this, it has to be seen as to what extent the allegations made by the parties against each other have been, directly or indirectly, admitted by the opposite party'? 10. The appellant/husband (PW-1) has stated that on 23-4-2008 in his absence, the respondent/wife without informing him had left her matrimonial home and went away to her parents house and since then, is residing there despite all efforts being made by him to bring her back. However, the appellant/husband, in para-2 of his statement (cross-examination) has admitted that on 23-4-2008 before leaving the matrimonial home, the respondent/wife had informed him on telephone about the fact that an altercation had taken place between the respondent/wife on the one hand and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law on the other, and had asked the appellant to immediately come to home, but the appellant had not come to home on the call of the respondent/wife. As such, it cannot be said that on 23-4-2008, the respondent/wife had left her matrimonial home in the absence of the appellant without informing him. As such, it cannot be said that on 23-4-2008, the respondent/wife had left her matrimonial home in the absence of the appellant without informing him. The appellant/husband (PW-1) has further stated that the respondent/wife used to ill-treat his mother and unmarried sister in his absence. However, this has been denied by the respondent/wife. In view of the statement of the appellant, it is clear that ill treatment, if any, by the respondent/wife of the mother- in-law and sister-in-law, was told to the appellant/husband by his mother and sister. However, the appellant has neither examined his mother nor his sister to substantiate this allegation. Thus, in the absence of statements of mother and sister of the appellant, the allegation regarding ill-treatment by the respondent/wife of her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, cannot be said to have been proved. 11. It is not in dispute that on 23-4-2008, the respondent/wife, in the absence of her husband (appellant), had left her matrimonial and had gone to her parents' house. It is also not in dispute that the respondent/wife had complained against the appellant/husband and his mother as well as sister at Mahila Thana, Raipur, in connection with demand of dowry, on which counseling was held at Mahila Thana. The appellant/husband has alleged that after marriage, the respondent/wife was insisting that the appellant should leave her mother and unmarried sister and live with her in a separate house. The appellant has repeated this in his statement before the Family Court and has stated that when counselling was held at Mahila Thana, Raipur, the respondent/wife had refused to reside with the appellant/husband along with his mother and sister and has said that she is ready to live with the appellant in a separate house, away from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. However, none of the persons present at the counseling has been examined by the appellant/husband to substantiate this allegation made by him against the respondent/wife. 12. The appellant/husband (PW-1) has admitted that he had not disclosed the fact regarding ill-treatment of his mother and sister by his wife (respondent) to anyone, nor he had convened any meeting of his community in this regard. The appellant/husband has also stated that as he had no objection to the frequent visits of his wife (respondent) to his parents house, therefore, he had not complained to anyone in this regard. The appellant/husband has also stated that as he had no objection to the frequent visits of his wife (respondent) to his parents house, therefore, he had not complained to anyone in this regard. The appellant (PW-1) has also admitted that after 24-4-2008, neither he had gone to the respondent's parent's house, nor had convened any meeting of his community for resolving the dispute between them. He (appellant) has further admitted that now even if the respondent/wife is ready and willing to live with him (appellant) along with his mother and sister, then also he (appellant) is not ready to keep her. The fact that no case is pending against the appellant and his family members on the report of the respondent/wife has also been admitted by the appellant. The appellant (PW-1) has also admitted that after informing him on telephone about the altercation between the respondent/wife and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, that she (respondent) had left her matrimonial home and had gone to her parent's house. 13. The respondent/wife (DW-1) has stated that on 23-4-2008 as she was being beaten by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, she had informed her husband (appellant) in this regard and has asked him to come immediately, but when the appellant did not come, that she left her matrimonial home only wearing a gown, in order to save herself and proceeded for her parent's house. This fact has been had not been challenged by the appellant in her cross-examination and the appellant has stated that he had no knowledge whether on 23-4-2008 on being beaten by his mother and sister, that his wife (respondent) had left her matrimonial home only in a gown and without chappal and had gone to her parent's house. 14. In view of the above admission of the appellant/husband, we are of the opinion that the appellant has not been successful in proving that the respondent/wife had committed cruelty towards the appellant his mother and sister and had deserted his company without just and reasonable cause. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Family Court and the same deserves to be affirmed. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 1st February, 2011, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 364-A/10, is hereby affirmed. 16. No order as to costs. 17. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 1st February, 2011, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 364-A/10, is hereby affirmed. 16. No order as to costs. 17. Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to draw up a decree accordingly. Appeal dismissed.