Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 1989 when both of them were studying M.B.B.S. Course, at Bangalore. It is stated to be love marriage and that at a later point of time, a formal marriage was performed on 20-05-1990 at Tirupati in the presence of the parents of the respondent. The marriage is said to have been registered, five years thereafter, i.e., on 28-03-1995, when they have shifted their residence to Hyderabad. They were also blessed with two daughters. 2. The appellant filed O.P.No.685 of 2006 before the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad for divorce against the respondent, under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short ‘the Act’). He pleaded the grounds of cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent. In the O.P., the appellant pleaded that after the birth of the second daughter, the respondent insisted that he should get his share in the property of his parents at Shimoga, Karnataka State and when she did not agree for the establishment of a Diagnostic Centre at Mangalore, he was compelled to come back to Hyderabad to practice medicine. He has also stated that even after he started living in a rented house at Himayathnagar, she did not allow him to visit his parents at Shimoga. 3. The respondent is said to have subjected him to harassment of various forms and to ill-treat him. It was also alleged that the respondent did not permit the parents of the appellant to come to their house and if on any occasions they visited Hyderabad, she created scenes. Another plea of the respondent was that in the year 2002, when he got admission in a Post-Graduate course in C.D.R. Hospital, at Hyderabad, she has virtually driven him out from the house, and when he stayed temporarily at the Hospital, she came to that place and created an ugly scene, so much so, sought to attack him physically. The respondent and her father are said to have insisted that the appellant should not shift his parents to Hyderabad and that they have threatened to institute criminal cases in case, he does not act as per their wish. The respondent is also said to have harassed the appellant in several ways, both when she went to Coimbatore, for higher studies, and after coming back. The respondent is also said to have harassed the appellant in several ways, both when she went to Coimbatore, for higher studies, and after coming back. She is said to have insisted that he should maintain the Maternity Nursing Home established by her mother. It was also alleged that on account of harassment and false representations made by the respondent, the appellant could not complete the P.G. Course. He made a detailed reference to the e-mails, or derogatory messages said to have been sent by the respondent. Reference was also made to the registration of Crime No.244 of 2006 in the Court of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in connection whereof, himself and his family members were said to have been called to Police Station. With these and other related allegations, the appellant prayed for a decree of divorce. 4. The respondent filed a counter in the O.P., opposing the same. The averments as to the marriage, registration thereof, birth of children are not disputed. She denied the allegation as to her demand for share in the property at Shimoga. According to her, a diagnostic centre was established at Shimoga in the year 1997 and the same has resulted in the loss to the tune of Rs.40 to 50 lakhs. She alleged that the appellant insisted on her to bring the money to defray the losses. She has also stated that when they were staying at Mangalore, the brother of the appellant used to come to that place from Sagar, and pick up quarrels even on trivial issues. She alleged that after the birth of the second daughter, the appellant and his family members demanded a sum of Rs.15 lakhs and harassed her and the family members, mercilessly. The details of the higher studies undertaken by her and respondent were also furnished. She stated that at one point of time, the appellant has become wild and hardly hit upon her nose, resulting fracture injury as well as bruise to the shoulder. In addition to denying the allegations, she has also presented certain instances of alleged harassment to her by the appellant. Through its order dated 21-09-2011, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 5. In addition to denying the allegations, she has also presented certain instances of alleged harassment to her by the appellant. Through its order dated 21-09-2011, the trial Court dismissed the O.P. Hence, this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 5. Smt. D. Vathsalendra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that though it is a love marriage between the parties, they lived together just for about seven years, and thereafter, the respondent subjected the appellant to harassment of different forms. She contends that the trouble started when the respondent insisted that the appellant must get his share in the joint family property at their native place, and on that pretext, she has ill-treated, not only the appellant, but also his family members. According to her, the respondent did not evince any interest to see the parents of the appellant at their native place, nor did she permit the relations of the appellant to visit their house. She further submitted that the respondent has virtually thrown the appellant from their house with all the articles and that he had to seek shelter at a Hospital. According to her, certain anonymous letters were fabricated by the respondent, damaging the study of the P.G. Course by the appellant and that the same has resulted in his disqualification. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the institution of criminal case against the appellant and his family members has taken the harassment to the pinnacle. She submits that the facts pleaded by the appellant and the evidence adduced by him are sufficient to hold that the grounds of desertion and cruelty are proved and the trial Court ought to have granted the decree. She has placed reliance upon several precedents. 6. Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that none of the facts pleaded by the appellant in his O.P., are true and they were not established. 7. He submits that each and every plea raised by the appellant was found to be not correct. He contends that the respondent never demanded that the appellant must get his share in the joint family property. According to him, the respondent and her parents met the entire expenditure for the maintenance of the parties herein, and their children. 7. He submits that each and every plea raised by the appellant was found to be not correct. He contends that the respondent never demanded that the appellant must get his share in the joint family property. According to him, the respondent and her parents met the entire expenditure for the maintenance of the parties herein, and their children. He submits that the very fact that the appellant and the respondent lived for considerable time at Mangalore, and have stayed on number of occasions at their native place at Sagar, proves that the contention that she did not visit the native place of the appellant is not correct. Learned counsel further submits that whenever the parents of the appellant visited Hyderabad, the respondent used to treat them with utmost respect and even the knee replacement operation for the mother of the appellant was conducted by the father of the respondent. He contends that the allegation as to the driving away of the appellant, by the respondent was not at all proved. As regards the allegation as to cruelty, learned counsel submits that in fact, is it is appellant who has resorted to acts of cruelty by causing serious injury to the nose and shoulder of the respondent, and that the same is clear from the evidence on record. He contends that the mere institution of a criminal case, that too when there existed valid basis, does not constitute an act of cruelty. 8. The appellant and the respondent got married when they were studying M.B.B.S at Bangalore. The O.P for divorce was filed 16 years after their marriage, alleging grounds of desertion and cruelty. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed only one point for its consideration, viz., Whether the respondent has deserted the appellant and committed any cruelty towards him. 9. The appellant examined PWs 1 to 5 and filed Exs.P-1 to P-24. On behalf of the respondent, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-28 were filed. A certificate dated 30-06-2011 is taken on record as Ex.X-1. The O.P. was dismissed. 10. In view of the extensive arguments advanced in the appeal, the points that arise for consideration are, whether 1. the appellant has proved the grounds of desertion; and 2. whether he is proved the ground of cruelty as against the respondent. 11. A certificate dated 30-06-2011 is taken on record as Ex.X-1. The O.P. was dismissed. 10. In view of the extensive arguments advanced in the appeal, the points that arise for consideration are, whether 1. the appellant has proved the grounds of desertion; and 2. whether he is proved the ground of cruelty as against the respondent. 11. It is rather unfortunate that the appellant and the respondent who had so much of liking for each other, and married, even by denying their parents, could not put up with each other, after they lived for about more than one and half decade. The record discloses that before her marriage with the appellant, the respondent was married to another, but was divorced. Though the marriage between the parties herein is said to have taken place in 1989, the appellant did not reveal the same to his parents for quite a considerable time. Another peculiarity is that nearly seven months after the informal love marriage, a marriage with all rituals was performed on 20-06-1990 and registration thereof was made in the year 1995. The parties lived together, they are blessed with two daughters in the year 1993 and 1995 respectively. 12. The appellant alleged that the respondent started harassing him from 1997 onwards by insisting on getting a share in the joint family property and that she used to either dislike or ill-treat his parents and relatives. 13. First, it needs to be seen as to whether the appellant has proved the ground of desertion. Normally, the ground of this nature is pleaded when one of the spouses leaves the company of the other, without any justification or is driven out highhandedly by the other spouse. In the instant case, the appellant and the respondent were living at Hyderabad from 1997 onwards. It appears, before that, the appellant made an endeavour to open a diagnostic centre at Bangalore, and that did not fructify. The case of desertion attributed to the respondent is that she has thrown away the appellant from the home. 14. It is important to mention that the parents of the respondent are reputed medical practitioners. While her father is an Orthopaedician, her mother was running a Maternity Hospital at Hyderabad, and in fact, the appellant worked in that hospital before he shifted to Mangalore. 14. It is important to mention that the parents of the respondent are reputed medical practitioners. While her father is an Orthopaedician, her mother was running a Maternity Hospital at Hyderabad, and in fact, the appellant worked in that hospital before he shifted to Mangalore. Deposing as PW-1, the appellant stated that in the year 2002, on one occasion, the respondent abused him and necked out him from the house by packing all his belongings in a carton and sending them to the reception of C.D.R. Hospital, where he was pursuing higher studies. He repeated the same in his chief-examination. However, it has come in the evidence that they started living together thereafter. Therefore, the alleged act of driving him out becomes relevant. The second act pleaded by him, as constituting the desertion is that, before proceeding to Coimbatore, for higher studies in August, 2004, the respondent asked him to arrange for a separate residence. From then onwards, the appellant is said to be residing in Working Mens’ Hostel. He has also stated that after the respondent returned from Coimbatore, he made an attempt to convince her to join the matrimonial home. The reply, according to him, was that he must come and live in the house of the respondent and manage the maternity nursing home established by her mother and that the condition was not acceptable to him. Even if these averments are taken as true, they cannot constitute desertion. It is only when the respondent refused to join him and expressed disinclination to live with him, that acts of desertion can be inferred. The fact that the appellant lived separately when the respondent was undergoing studies at Coimbatore, or that she insisted him to help them in running a nursing home cannot be treated as acts of desertion, or of cruelty. He was not required to commit any illegality. If he was not inclined to look after the nursing home, he could have convinced the respondent about his. We therefore find that the appellant failed to prove the ground of desertion. Now comes the plea as to cruelty. That there existed disharmony between the parties is abundantly clear from the tone and tenor of the pleadings and the evidence on record. However, mere lack of harmony between the spouses does not lead to inference of cruelty. We therefore find that the appellant failed to prove the ground of desertion. Now comes the plea as to cruelty. That there existed disharmony between the parties is abundantly clear from the tone and tenor of the pleadings and the evidence on record. However, mere lack of harmony between the spouses does not lead to inference of cruelty. As PW-1, the appellant narrated the sequence of events in his life with the respondent. PW-2 is his father and PW-3 is his brother. It elicited from them that the knee replacement operation of the mother of the appellant was conducted by the father of the respondent, at their own hospital. Though the appellant made an attempt to plead that the charges were collected, the respondent pleads that the vouchers were filled on the request of the appellant for obtaining medical reimbursement. The allegation that the respondent did not permit the parents and other relations of the appellant to visit their house is equally belied from the admission of the appellant as well as the other witnesses. It was elicited that the couple visited Sagar and lived there for some time. No instances of the respondent objecting to the visit by the parents or relations of the appellant were cited.PW-4 is a Doctor by profession. He is not only acquainted with the parties, but also the parents of the respondent, but if one looks at his evidence, it hardly commands any respect or trustworthiness. He was treated as an elderly person by both the parties. However, his evidence does not befit his stature, nor does it reflect neutrality. Even according to him, the appellant was introduced to him by the respondent and he arranged for the employment of the appellant. The following was elicited from him in the cross-examination: “…I met petitioner in 2001 when he come to CDR hospital along with his wife Dr Sailaja as he wanted to work with me and she introduced him. Accordingly he was appointed for some time he worked honorary and there after he was paid …” “…I knew both Dr. C.V. Rathnam and Dr. Padmavathi the parents of the Respondent. Dr. C.V. Rathnam was humble, Police, gentle polite character…” …According to me they had their different of opinions with their families from both sides which resulted in a serious rift which I could not patch up. C.V. Rathnam and Dr. Padmavathi the parents of the Respondent. Dr. C.V. Rathnam was humble, Police, gentle polite character…” …According to me they had their different of opinions with their families from both sides which resulted in a serious rift which I could not patch up. I pached it up several times but it fell up several times… …Whenever the father-in-law of the respondent, that is father of the petitioner visiting Hyderabad he was staying with petitioner and respondent. I met him only once there. I have seen the carton with clothes of Kanthi in the reception of our Hospital and the reception people told me that the servant maid of Dr. Kanthi Lal Jain and Dr. Sailaja has brought and left them… …Since Kanthi Lal Jain could not go back to his house and stayed in the hospital I assumed that he is thrown out of the house, as he (Petitioner) told me that he was thrown out.” The most objectionable statement on his part was this, …I feel that even if there is no interference from any one, it is not possible for them to live together and only option is dissolution of marriage” 15. This does not at all befit a family friend of reputed couple of Doctors and of an elderly person. Either he was trying to exhibit his heat and hatred towards the family or was unduly siding with the appellant. 16. The evidence of PW-5 is not at all helpful to the appellant. 17. On the other hand, it disproves his case. The main purport of the evidence of this witness is that it is on account of certain complaints against the appellant, that he could not get through the DNB Artho exams. He stated that there is a serious matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the respondent, but expressed the view that they can live happily, if outsiders interference is not there. 18. He was truthful to a larger extent and said, “…I am aware of the injuries of the Respondent has suffered in past 8 years. I know only one injury of her nose. She herself informed about the injury. She told me that she had gone to the room of the petitioner, they had an argument and he had hit her, he also bit her on the shoulder. She informed me about this on phone. I know only one injury of her nose. She herself informed about the injury. She told me that she had gone to the room of the petitioner, they had an argument and he had hit her, he also bit her on the shoulder. She informed me about this on phone. Thereafter I went to her place saw the wounds on her nose, shoulder. I had enquired with petitioner about the injuries. He told me that she came to his room picked up argument, threw all the articles in the room helter skelter, and kicked him in the scrotam and in order to protect himself he had hit her. There after I enquired with her and she had informed me that she gone to Apollo hospital got treated and has diagnosed for nasal bone fracture. I did not inquire with petitioner whether he has visited respondent or not after the incident took place as to her welfare after the injuries. To my awareness it is correct to say that petitioner has not got the Respondent treated for this injuries…” 19. When PW-5 has categorically stated that the appellant did not even get the injury of his wife, the respondent, treated, no court can infer an act of cruelty on the part of the respondent. The possibility, if at all, can be otherwise. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa (2013(3)ALD 11(SC)), in support of the contention that, if unfounded allegations are made against one spouse by the other and prosecution is launched, that itself can constitute a ground of cruelty. In the instant case, the appellant failed to prove that unfounded allegations are made against him. The mere filing of complaint under Section 498-A of I.P.C. cannot be treated as making unfounded allegations. Acrimony between the parties is clear and the evidence on record discloses that many averments of the appellant are not true. If every complaint filed under Section 498-A I.P.C is to be treated as an act of cruelty, the easiest way for a husband to get divorce from his wife would be to cause harassment, leading to filing a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and then to file an O.P under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Act, citing the filing of complaint as an act of cruelty. Other citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts. Extensive reference is made to the documentary evidence of the respective parties, or the truth or otherwise of the levy of hospital charges for the knee replacement of the mother of the appellant. All those factors pale into insignificance, once this Court finds that the appellant failed to prove the grounds of cruelty. 21. We hope and expect that at least in the interest of the children, who are grown up and desperately need the parental cover, the parties would dissolve their differences. 22. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. 23. There shall be no order as to costs.