JUDGMENT A. V. CHANDRASHEKARA, J. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-husband under S. 19 of Family Courts Act challenging the final order passed by the V Additional Judge Principal Family Court, Bangalore in M.C. No. 316/2008 dated 17-12-2011. The appellant/husband herein is the petitioner and respondent/wife herein is the respondent in the said case. The parties will be referred to as the petitioner and respondent as per ranking in the trial Court. 2. The appellant herein had filed a petition under S. 13(1)(ia) seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The said petition has been dismissed by considered judgment dated 17-12-2011. It is this considered order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. 3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 19-8-1998 at GNR Kalyana Mantapa, Bangalore as per Hindu rites and custom. After the marriage, both of them stayed together in the matrimonial house at Bangalore. The petitioner is the only son to his parents. According to him, the respondent was treated very well by him and his family members. The respondent gave birth to a female child on 20-10-1999 and her name as Shivani. On 14-4-2004, the parents of the respondent came to the house of the petitioner and wanted the respondent and the child to accompany them to Mysore for summer vacation and assured that both of them would be sent by 20-5-2004 as the school would reopen by then. Both of them did not return to the matrimonial home. When the petitioner rang up on 20-5-2004, he heard from the respondent that she was not prepared to come back to Bangalore. She had asserted that she would settle in Mysore only. Anyhow the petitioner made arrangements for the education of child at Mysore itself. As respondent did not come back and join him, he was constrained to file petition under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore in M.C. No. 791/2004 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and it was got dismissed as not pressed as the respondent had flatly refused to join the petitioner in the conciliation proceedings. 4. The respondent had filed an application under S. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was awarded as monthly maintenance. 4. The respondent had filed an application under S. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance and a sum of Rs. 2,500/- was awarded as monthly maintenance. When the petitioner was about to file divorce petition, the respondent and her child came to the house of the petitioner all of a sudden and prayed him to pardon her and to her mistakes. Later on, the parents of the respondent, who were at Mysore shifted to Bangalore and started to stay in K.G. Nagar, Bangalore. The father of the respondent was working as a Professor in a College at Kolar. The moment, the parents of the respondent shifted to Bangalore, her attitude changed all of a sudden and she started quarrelling with the petitioner and started treating him with all contempt. According to him, her intention was to grab the property in one form or the other. She chose to lodge a complaint before the police and after filing the complaint, she came home and collected all the belongings and left home abruptly. All these facts are said to be cruelty within the meaning of S. 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act. With these pleadings, he requested the Court to dissolve the marriage by way of divorce. 5. The respondent chose to file detailed objections denying all the material averments and called upon the petitioner to prove the alleged allegations. According to her, the petitioner himself treated her and her daughter with all cruelty and, therefore, she had filed a petition under S. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the 2nd ACMM Court in C. Mis. 101/2008. In the said petition, some protection orders were passed and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 79,100/- towards educational expenses of his daughter for the year 2007-08 and Rs. 25,000/- towards incidental expenses and Rs. 6,000/- per month towards maintenance. Being aggrieved by the said order, he chose to file an appeal in Crl. A. 562/2008, which came to be dismissed on 21-12-2009. He is accused in C.C. No. 2816/2010. He is stated to have not complied with the orders in regard to maintenance and protection orders. The present appeal is stated to have been filed as counter blast to her petition filed under S. 12 of Domestic Violence Act. According to her, a sum of Rs. He is accused in C.C. No. 2816/2010. He is stated to have not complied with the orders in regard to maintenance and protection orders. The present appeal is stated to have been filed as counter blast to her petition filed under S. 12 of Domestic Violence Act. According to her, a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was spent towards marriage, gold ornaments and silver articles were given as gift to him and his family members. 6. According to her, he started demanding her to bring dowry from her parents. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- gifted by her father to her on 25th birthday was also utilised by him. The petitioner is stated to be addicted to liquor and eating non-vegetarian though he hails from a religious family. The petitioner had behaved very badly with her in performing marital obligations and really it was a torture. He had even assaulted her once and caused bleeding injury to her nose. Later on, she did her MBA through correspondence course and now working in Bangalore. She was served with notice in MC No. 791/2004 filed under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She contested the same and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance. Since he had assured to look after her and child, she once again joined him. His father started taunting her for being a lecturer in Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology. The petitioner used to abuse her and child without any reason and assaulted her on two occasions and child was also beaten. It is alleged that on 29-8-2007 at about 2:30 p.m. she returned from the college and came to know that her child had not taken food, when she asked the petitioner, he started beating the child in her presence and his father who was sitting and watching TV did not interfere at all. The petitioner and his father are addicted to luxurious life by going to tennis club, taking liquor in parties. Left with no other avenues, she had to go back to her parents house and lived separately. Hence, she had prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 7. The petitioner himself has been examined as PW-1 and respondent has been examined as RW-1. On behalf of the petitioner, 3 exhibits have been got marked and on behalf of the respondent, no documents have been marked. 8. Hence, she had prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 7. The petitioner himself has been examined as PW-1 and respondent has been examined as RW-1. On behalf of the petitioner, 3 exhibits have been got marked and on behalf of the respondent, no documents have been marked. 8. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Judge of the Family Court has framed following 3 points for consideration : a) Whether the petitioner proves that he was subjected to cruelty by his wife/respondent during their joint residence as alleged? b) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the decree of divorce on the ground of alleged cruelty? c) To what order the petitioner is entitled? 9. Points (a) and (b) has been held in the negative. Accordingly, the petition has been dismissed and decree of divorce has been rejected. 10. Several grounds have been urged in the appeal memo challenging the said order contending that the trial Court has not properly evaluated the evidence in right perspective and that the trial Court has adopted a wrong approach to the real state of affairs. It is further contended that though initial burden cast upon the petitioner is effectively discharged, the trial Court has dismissed the petition. It is further contended that the order in question is opposed to law, facts and probabilities. Hence, it is prayed to allow the appeal and grant divorce. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order contending that the respondent has not only substantiated her defence, but has demolished the case of the petitioner. 12. After going through the records and arguments, following points arise for our consideration : a) Whether the learned Judge of the Family Court is justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to effectively prove that the respondent has treated him with cruelty? b) Whether any interference is called for, if so to what extent? 13. The petitioner has been examined as PW-1 and he has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and it is the replica of the petition averments. The evidence includes cross-examination. He has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has admitted that he had filed a petition under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C. No. 791/2004 and later he withdrew the same after it was contested by his wife. The evidence includes cross-examination. He has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has admitted that he had filed a petition under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C. No. 791/2004 and later he withdrew the same after it was contested by his wife. Ex. P-1 is the order sheet of M.C. No. 791/2004. It got dismissed on 3-8-2006 by filing a memo stating that both of them are living separately since a month. On his request, liberty was granted to file fresh petition for divorce. In the meanwhile he was directed to pay interim maintenance to his wife and child in M.C. 791/2004. The respondent had filed an execution petition in EP No. 54/2006 for recovering the balance of maintenance. A memo was filed by the respondent-decree-holder to dismiss the execution petition as both of them had been living happily since one month. Since, things did not go well, the respondent had to file petition under S. 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in C. Mis. 101/2008 before the II Addl. ACMM Court, Bangalore. Ex. R-1 is the certified copy of her evidence. 14. Ex. R-2 is the copy of the petition filed under S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Ex. R-3 is the final order passed on19-6-2008 in C. Mis. 101/2008 ordering the husband to pay educational expenses of the child to an extent of Rs. 79,100/-, and had been directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as damages to her and Rs. 6,000/- per month for alternative accommodation. She was given liberty to recover the balance of Rs. 2,65,000/-. Against the said order, he chose to file Crl. A.562/2008 before the Sessions Court, FTC No. 1, Bangalore and same came to be dismissed. Ex. R-4 is the certified copy of the judgment passed in criminal appeal. This would speak in volume against his conduct towards wife and children. These aspects have been taken into consideration by the trial Court. 15. If there was no violence in the matrimonial home, she would not have approached the Criminal Court under the relevant provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. If her case did not have any semblance of truth, the learned Judge would not have passed the protection orders and would not have ordered maintenance. 15. If there was no violence in the matrimonial home, she would not have approached the Criminal Court under the relevant provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. If her case did not have any semblance of truth, the learned Judge would not have passed the protection orders and would not have ordered maintenance. The very fact that such order has been confirmed by the Sessions Court will go against him. Therefore, suggestion put to him that he withdrew the petition filed under S. 9 as he had to pay huge maintenance cannot be found fault with. He has admitted that his wife has filed C.C. No. 2186/2010 for enforcing the order passed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the 1 ACMM. Though RW-1 has been cross-examined at length, nothing has been culled out from her mouth to discredit either her case or to probabilise his case. 16. On reassessing the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to effectively discharge the initial burden cast upon him in the matter to prove the serious allegation of cruelty in the matrimonial home. On the other hand, the respondent has been able to probabilise her defence in regard to the violence that took place in the matrimonial home. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and the same is neither opposed to law nor facts nor probabilities. Hence, we answer point (a) in the affirmative. 17. In view of affirming point (a), the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The order passed in M.C. No. 316/2008 on the file of V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore is affirmed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.