JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant and respondent were married in the year 1994. The case of the husband is that after the marriage they lived happily for sometime. That the respondent/wife would constantly use abusive language against him and she left him and went to her parental house. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued by the husband calling upon her to come back to the marital home. She did not do so. Hence, he filed the instant petition under Section-13(i-a)(i-b) seeking dissolution of his marriage. By the impugned order, the Family Court dismissed the petition. Hence, the present appeal the Husband. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. That the trial court failed to consider the material and evidence let-in by the appellant. The respondent is served and unrepresented. 2. On hearing the learned counsel and examining the records, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal. The ground that is urged for dissolution of marriage is desertion and cruelty. That she would constantly abuse the husband. That she would treat him with cruelty; that she did not show any love and affection towards him or towards his parents. Expect these self-serving testimonies; no acceptable evidence has been led-in to establish the same. 3. On the other hand, the respondent-wife contends that she was driven out of the house and she is forced to live with her parents. 'That there was demand for dowry by the husband. It is her specific case that the mother and the sister of the husband were also residing in the same house along with them. That he has married one Madamma, who is the daughter of his sister Shivamma and he is living with her. 4. In the evidence of the wife, it is stated that a child was born out of the wedlock which subsequently died. However, a suggestion was put by the husband that the child did not belong to him at all. The cross-examination of the husband would reflect the state of affairs. It is not the ground alleged by him in the evidence on unchastity or adultery. However, he has recklessly made suggestions on her. 5. However, a suggestion was put by the husband that the child did not belong to him at all. The cross-examination of the husband would reflect the state of affairs. It is not the ground alleged by him in the evidence on unchastity or adultery. However, he has recklessly made suggestions on her. 5. When the husband was being cross-examined when a suggestion was put to him to join his wife, the wife was ready and willing to join him but however the husband was not willing to take her back. The stand of the husband goes to show the intention of the husband in making the false allegation is only to take a decree of divorce from the respondent, in view of the fact that his intention is to live with the second wife, Madamma. 6. In view of the evidence and the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the husband has failed to establish the ground of desertion and cruelty and the grounds urged by him has only remained only as allegation. The grounds urged have to be established through evidence. Mere pleadings cannot entail a decree for divorce. There is no acceptable evidence in support of the pleadings. No decree could be granted based only on pleadings. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.