JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place, on 12.06.1988, and they were also blessed with a male child in the year 1999. However, on account of the disputes between them, the appellant started living in the house of her parents, from the year 1999 onwards. The respondent filed O.P.No.47 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), for divorce against the appellant. He pleaded that the appellant is an educated woman, whereas he is not that much educated, and on being insisted by the appellant and her parents, he started the pesticides business, though he was from an agricultural family. He stated that he sustained huge loss due to lack of knowledge in the field, and thereafter, the appellant and her parents started insisting that the mother and grandmother of the respondent must execute deeds of settlement in favour of the appellant and the respondent. It was also his case that when his mother and grandmother did not agree for the demand, he made an attempt to murder his parents and grandmother, on being instigated by the appellant. The respondent further stated that after moving to the house of her parents, the appellant filed a complaint in the P.S. Tadepalligudem, under Section 498-A of I.P.C., and the same was registered as Crime No.132 of 2002. He is said to have been arrested in connection with that. The appellant is said to have got issued a notice dated 09.06.2002, alleging that the respondent is addicted to alcohol and he misrepresented about the extent of property held by him and that huge amounts were given to him between 1999-2000 by her father. The respondent ultimately pleaded that the acts and omissions on the part of the appellant constitute desertion and cruelty, and accordingly, prayed for a decree of divorce. The appellant filed a counter opposing the O.P. She reiterated the contents of the notice got issued by her on 09.06.2002. She stated that herself and the child were given the worst possible treatment, when she was at the house of the respondent and that on many occasions, he drove them out in the middle of the night requiring them to travel in lorries. She stated that herself and the child were given the worst possible treatment, when she was at the house of the respondent and that on many occasions, he drove them out in the middle of the night requiring them to travel in lorries. It is also stated that under the influence of alcohol, he tried to kill the child on the first birthday. She denied the allegation that she instigated the respondent to murder his parents and grandmother. The appellant further stated that with the sinister motive of denying any property to the minor child, the respondent and other family members got filed three suits, being O.S.Nos.4, 52 and 53 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, in a collusive manner. She opposed the O.P., and stated that she tolerated all the ill-treatment meted out by her with the fond hope that the respondent would change, and instead, the latter made an attempt to take advantage of his own misdeeds. The trial Court allowed the O.P. through its order dated 28.02.2006. Hence, this appeal. Smt.Vani, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the whole approach of the trial Court was totally objectionable and though there is no evidence, whatever to prove the allegations as to desertion and cruelty, the decree for divorce was passed. She contends that the observations made by the trial Court, such as that continuation of marital relationship would not leave any fruitful result or that there are no grounds to continue the marital relationship, reflect the perversity on the part of the trial Court and that such an approach is contrary to the spirit of family relations and the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the behaviour and attitude of the respondent can be assessed from the fact that in the O.P., itself, he stated that he attempted to murder his parents and grandmother and sought excuse for such a criminal behaviour alleging that it was at the instigation of the appellant. She also submits that the version put forward by the appellant, such as her having been driven out from the matrimonial house on several occasions in the middle of the night and that the respondent attempted to kill the child under the influence of intoxication, remain unrebutted and still the decree was passed. She also submits that the version put forward by the appellant, such as her having been driven out from the matrimonial house on several occasions in the middle of the night and that the respondent attempted to kill the child under the influence of intoxication, remain unrebutted and still the decree was passed. Sri G.Narender Raj, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant was interested more in the property of the respondent than continuing the family relationship. He contends that the appellant always reeled under superiority complex, on account of her being educated and harassed the respondent. Learned counsel submits that the very fact that the appellant has been living for the past more than one decade in the house of her parents, is sufficient to sustain the decree passed by the trial Court. In the O.P. filed by the respondent herein, for divorce, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, the trial Court framed only one point for consideration, viz., "whether the marriage of respondent with the appellant can be dissolved by decree of divorce?" The evidence in the O.P. is almost dismal. It comprises of the depositions of PW.1 and RW.1 and the only documentary evidence is Ex.A.1, copy of the notice, got issued by the appellant. The O.P., was allowed. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is, as to whether the respondent proved the grounds of cruelty and desertion, against the appellant? The marriage between the parties herein took place in the year 1998 and they were also blessed with a child. Since 1999, they started living separately and it is the appellant, who took initiative in the matter, by issuing a notice in Ex.A.1. It is thereafter that the respondent filed the O.P. for divorce. The marriage between persons professing Hindu Religion is not a contract. It brings about between the two persons, a bond, which is expected to remain till the end of their lives. It is only in exceptional cases that the marriage can be dissolved and divorce can be granted, if it is found that necessary ingredients pertaining to the grounds recognized for this purpose, are proved. Through catena of decisions, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have laid down the parameters relating to the grounds of cruelty and desertion. It is only in exceptional cases that the marriage can be dissolved and divorce can be granted, if it is found that necessary ingredients pertaining to the grounds recognized for this purpose, are proved. Through catena of decisions, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have laid down the parameters relating to the grounds of cruelty and desertion. While cruelty is mostly a mental phenomena leading to inconvenience and harassment to one spouse through the acts and omissions of the other, the desertion is the one wherein the spouse accused of it has left the company of the other, without any valid justification. In either of the cases, the person, who pleads the grounds, must prove them to the satisfaction of the Court. A self-serving statement would hardly be of any use. In the present case, the only oral evidence on behalf of the respondent is his deposition. Howsoever well prepared it may be, it would be of no use to prove the two grounds pleaded by him. He did not even choose to examine his family members to prove the serious allegations made by him. In a way, he confessed in the O.P. itself that he made an attempt to murder his parents and grandmother, when they refused to give the properties. The plea that he did so at the instigation of the appellant, can not at all be accepted. A person with such character and conduct cannot be expected to have any regard for truth. The documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant is nothing but a notice, got issued by him. It is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court felt that the grounds pleaded by the respondent are proved. It is only when the grounds pleaded in the O.P. are proved that the relief can be granted. Nowhere in the order passed by the trial Court, it is held that the grounds are proved, except stating that the filing of a complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. would amount to mental cruelty. It is only when the grounds pleaded in the O.P. are proved that the relief can be granted. Nowhere in the order passed by the trial Court, it is held that the grounds are proved, except stating that the filing of a complaint under Section 498-A I.P.C. would amount to mental cruelty. The approach of the trial Court can be discerned from the following observations, in para 9 of the judgment: "The conduct of both parties revealed that even though the petitioner is offering to live with the respondent it is not a hearty welcome and the respondent is offering to join the petitioner in half hearted manner and it was not suggested to PW.1 during cross-examination that the respondent intends to join the society of the petitioner, even though an offer was made during chief examination." When the O.P. is filed with a clear prayer for divorce, it is not known as to from where the trial Court gathered the impression that the respondent was offering to live with the appellant. The importance given by the Parliament to the family disputes and making it obligatory on the part of the Courts to ensure that the parties to a marriage are made to live together as far as possible, is evident from the fact that the Family Courts are established throughout. In the instant case also, the predecessor of the Officer, who dealt with the matter, made an attempt to bring about reconciliation. It is only when there is no alternative for the Court, and a case is made out for divorce, that the decree can be passed. However, the basis indicated by the trial Court is evident from the following two sentences. "Continuation of marital relationship between parties would not yield any fruitful result and there is irretrievable break down of marriage between the parties... Thus, I find that there are no grounds to continue the marital relationship between the parties and it is a fit matter to grant divorce by dissolving the marriage between parties." This approach is totally perverse and unwarranted. A Court can never grant divorce, by observing that there are no grounds to continue the marital relationship. In fact, there need not be any grounds to continue marital relationship, and if at all they are required, it is only for dissolving the marriage. Further, no one can expect any "fruitful" result from any marriage. A Court can never grant divorce, by observing that there are no grounds to continue the marital relationship. In fact, there need not be any grounds to continue marital relationship, and if at all they are required, it is only for dissolving the marriage. Further, no one can expect any "fruitful" result from any marriage. The existence or sustenance of relationship itself is the end result. It is not a business enterprise to expect any profit or return. We are of the clear view that the respondent failed to prove the grounds pleaded by him and the order passed by the trial Court is perverse. It is not based on the evidence, and is contrary to settled principles of law. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order and decree under appeal are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.