JUDGMENT Garg, J. -- 1. This judgment shall dispose of first appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant-husband aggrieved of the judgment delivered by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family, Court, Indore in Hindu Marriage Case No.669/2010 dated 2.9.2011. By the impugned judgment, the learned Family Court has been pleased to dismiss the suit filed on behalf of the appellant for dissolving the marriage with Smt. Kanti Rathwe the respondent both on the ground of treating her with cruelty and deserting him for the period of more than two years w.e.f. 9.10.2007. The suit was instituted on 17.8.2010. 2. The respondent contested the suit before the Family Court by filing written statement however, she did not appear to lead any evidence in support of her pleas. She has also not appeared before us despite service. She also did not appear before the mediation center despite several notices given to her and her counsel. 3. The Family Court after recording the evidence led on behalf of the appellant despite the fact that the respondent neither cross-examined the appellant nor led any evidence in the suit, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. Hence this appeal. 4. Briefly stating, it was the case of the appellant that he was married with the respondent accordingly Hindu rites on 11.7.2005 at Itarsi. AFter the marriage the respondent started residing with the family of the appellant at village Kalda Tahsil Bhikangaon District Khargone. From the wedlock, a son namely, Rudraksh was born on 3.2.2007. It was further alleged that right from the beginning, the respondent treated the appellant and his family with cruelty. She was dis-respectful to the family members of the appellant and used to say that the appellant was not to her liking. She used to say that she is not in a position to live with the appellant in his joint family. Whenever, there was any effort made to counsel her, she became up set and started using abusing language and also threatened the appellant and his family of false implication in dowry demand case. 5. It was also the case of the appellant that on account of conduct of the respondent, the appellant started residing at Indore. Here also, there was no change in the behaviour of the appellant. She was always indulging him with cruel behaviour and did not take interest in the household work. 5. It was also the case of the appellant that on account of conduct of the respondent, the appellant started residing at Indore. Here also, there was no change in the behaviour of the appellant. She was always indulging him with cruel behaviour and did not take interest in the household work. She did not prepare food for the appellant. Whenever, the appellant told her to behave properly, she used to shout on the appellant. On 25.6.2005, she left Indore along with her brother. Even at that time, when the appellant tried to tell about the mis-behaviour of the respondent to her brother, she started fighting with the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant brought respondent to Itarsi and told her family members about her conduct. They also made effort to counsel her but there also the respopndent’s behaviour continued to remain as usual. It is also alleged that the respondent even tried to commit suicide. In July, 2006, after she was pregnant and her examination was conducted by the doctor, the doctor revealed that she had been taking medicines which would made her health deteriorated. Infact, even the brother and maternal uncle of the respondent gave threatening calls to the appellant. She was not even looking after the child. Whenever, she was told that she should behave properly and should take care of child, she was angry. Then the appellant told her to call his parents to take care of child, she told that she would kill the child and would commit suicide. After that the appellant had lodged the report in Aerodrum Thana on 1.10.2007. After that incident, the respondent left her matrimonial house and started living with her parents and also filed a case under section 498A of IPC which is pending. 6. The respondent did file a written statement after she was served with summon and denied all the allegations made by the appellant. She also stated and it was the appellant, who used to treat her with cruelty and his family members used to make dowry demand. In this regard, she has also stated that a complaint filed against the appellant in the competent Court is still pending. She also stated and it was the appellant, who used to treat her with cruelty and his family members used to make dowry demand. In this regard, she has also stated that a complaint filed against the appellant in the competent Court is still pending. On the basis of the plealdings, the Family Court framed the following issues : ^^¼v½ D;k izfrizkfFkZ;k dk izkFkhZ ds lkFk fookg fnukad 11-7-2005 ds dqN le; i’pkr~ gh O;ogkj vR;f/kd ØwjrkiwoZd jgk gS vkSj izfrizkfFkZ;k] izkFkhZ dks dbZ rjhdksa ls ijs’kku dj ekufld o ‘kkjhfjd d”V igq¡pkrs gq, Øwjrk dkfjr djrh jgh gS\ ¼c½ D;k izfrizkfFkZ;k fnukad 9-10-2007 ls fcuk fdlh ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k ds izkFkhZ dk ifjR;kx dj i`Fkd fuokljr~ gS vkSj nkEiR; laca/kksa dk fuokZg ugha dj jgh gS vkSj bl dkj.k izkFkhZ] izfrizkfFkZ;k ls fookg&foPNsn dk t;i= ikus dk ik= gS\ ¼l½ lgk;rk ,oa O;;\** 7. Even though, the appellant led evidence to support his plea and the respondent neither examined herself nor led any evidence to support her case, the Family Court relying upon the complaint filed by the respondent before Mahila Thana, Indore under section 498A of IPC believed the case of the respondent even though, the allegations made in the complaint were completely un-substantiated, dismissed the suit. 8. 8. The relevant observation made by the Family Court in this regard is reproduced hereunder : ^^izkFkhZ lqjs’k }kjk U;k;ky; esa tks ‘kiFk ij dFku fn;k gS] vkSj tks nLrkost izn’kZ ih&2lh yxk;r ih&80 ds nLrkost is’k fd, gSa] mlls rFkk izfrizkfFkZ;k }kjk izkFkhZ i{k ds fo:) ngst izrkM+uk dh] dh xbZ fjiksVZ izn’kZ ih&81 ds nLrkost ls ;g Li”V gS fd mHk;i{k ds chp xaHkhj fookn gS fooknksa ds pyrs gq, rFkk izfrizkfFkZ;k }kjk izkFkhZ vkSj mlds ifjokj ds fo:) tks fjiksVZ izn’kZ ih&81 dh fnukad 30-5-2008 dks Fkkus esa fy[kkbZ xbZ gS vkSj tks tokc ewy izkFkZuk&i= dk izfrizkFkhZ }kjk nsrs gq, tokc ds pj.k Ø-9 esa tks rF; mYysf[kr fd, gSa] ftlls ;g Li”V gS fd izfrizkfFkZ;k dks ngst bR;kfn ds fy, rax vkSj ijs’kku fd;k tkrk jgk gS vkSj ekjihV Hkh dh tkrh jgh gS vkSj og fnukad 9-10-2007 dks Hkh izfrizkfFkZ;k dks ekjihV dj tcjnLrh ?kj ls fudky fn, tkus ds laca/k esa izfrizkfFkZ;k us vius tokc esa mYys[k fd;k gS vkSj izfrizkfFkZ;k ngst dh ek¡x ds v/;/khu vkSj izkFkhZ dh vksj mlds ifjokj dh Øwjrk ds v/khu jgh gSa vkSj blfy, izfrizkfFkZ;k us izkFkhZ vkSj mlds firk f’koukjk;.k ,oa ekrk jk/kkckbZ ds fo:) izn’kZ ih&81 dh fjiksVZ /kkjk 498, Hkk-na-fo- dh fy[kkbZ gS vkSj mlesa mlus ?kVuk dk le; fnukad 11-5-2005 ls ysdj fjiksVZ djus dh fnukad 30-5-2008 rd dk mYys[k fd;k gS] ftlls ;g Li”V gs fd izfrizkfFkZ;k] izkFkhZ ls fnukad 9-10-2007 ls fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds i`Fkd ugha jg jgh gS] cfYd izkFkhZ ,oa mlds ifjokj ds }kjk mls ngst vkSj 50]000@& :- dh /kujkf’k dh ek¡x fd, tkus vkSj izkFkhZ ,oa mlds ifjokj ds }kjk izfrizkfFkZ;k ds izfr Øwjrk dkfjrk fd, tkus ds dkj.kksa ls i`Fkd fuokl dj jgh gSA izn’kZ ih&81 dk nLrkost Lo;a izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vkSj mls izLrqr djus ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ dk ;g d`R; izdj.k esa ;g rF; LFkkfir djrk gS fd izkFkhZ izn’kZ ih&81 ds nLrkostksa ij fo’okl djrk gS vkSj mlds fo’okl djus ls ;g Li”V gS fd izfrizkfFkZ;k us izkFkhZ vkSj mlds ekrk&firk dks mls ngst ek¡xus] mlds lkFk ekjihV djus ,oa mlds vkjksiksa dks vizR;{k :i ls Lohdkj dj fy;k gS vkSj bl rjg tc rd izfrizkfFkZ;k dh izn’kZ ih&81 dh fjiksVZ ij ls yafcr vkijkf/kd izdj.k dk fujkdj.k ugha gks tkrk] rc rd izn’kZ ih&81 dh fjiksVZ vlR; vkSj fujkf/kdkj gS] bl rF; ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ dk vuqjks/k Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 10- bl rjg mijksDr foospu ,oa vk/kkjksa ij ;g fu”d”kZ fudyrk gS fd izkFkhZ izdj.k esa ;g rF; Li”V :i ls izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd izfrizkfFkZ;k dk vkpj.k izkFkhZ ,oa mlds ifjokj ds izfr ØwjrkiwoZd jgk gS vkSj ;g rF; Hkh izkFkhZ izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd izfrizkfFkZ;k }kjk fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds izkFkhZ dk fnukad 9-10-2007 ls ifjR;kx dj nkEiR; laca/kksa ds ikyu ls bUdkj fd;k gSA 11- izkFkhZ izdj.k esa izfrizkfFkZ;k }kjk izkFkhZ ,oa mlds ifjokj ds izfr Øwjrk dkfjr djus ds rF; dks izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS vkSj bl vk/kkj dks Hkh izekf.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd izfrizkfFkZ;k fnukad 9-10-2007 ls izkFkhZ ls i`Fkd fcuk fdlh ;qfDr;qDr dkj.k ds fuokl dj jgh gS vkSj ;g rF; Hkh izkFkhZ izkef.kr ugha dj ldk gS fd izfrizkfFkZ;k }kjk fcuk fdlh dkj.k ds nkEiR; laca/kksa ls bUdkj dj izkFkhZ dks mlds lgokl lq[k ls oafpr fd;k gSA fopkj.kh; iz’u Ø- ^^v** ,oa ^^c** rn~uqlkj fujkd`r fd, tkrs gSaA** 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation of the appellant as pleaded in his plaint clearly establishes that the overall behaviour of the respondent was cruel qua towards the appellant and his family members. She deserted him for the period of more than two years prior to the filing of the suit without any rhyme and reason. Merely, because she had filed complaint against the appellant, would not prove that she had good reasons to desert the appellant. It is also submitted that the averments made by the appellant which was supported by the appellant in his affidavit having remained un-rebutted in the absence of the respondent either cross-examination or even to led evidence, the case of the appellant must be deemed to have been admitted by the respondent. It is submitted that in view of that, the appellant is entitled to decree of divorce on both the counts. 10. Having given our thoughtful consideration and the submission made by the appellant and having perused the plaint filed by the appellant supported by his affidavit and in the absence of the respondent having not come forward or to lead any evidence in support of her plea taken in her written statement, we are of the considered view that the averments made in the plaint by the appellant which is supported with his affidavit proves both the grounds i.e. incliction of cruelty by the respondent upon the appellant as also deserting him. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment delivered by the Family Court, we decide both the issues in favour of the appellant. 11. Consequently, the findings of the Family Court on both the issues are reversed and the impugned judgment and decree for grant of divorce, on both the grounds i.e. infliction of cruelty and deserting him under section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, is hereby set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The marriage between the parties is dissolved by decree of divorce both on the ground of infliction of cruelty and on the ground of desertion by the respondent to the appellant for a period of more than two yearsw prior to the filing of suit for no rhyme or reason. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.