JUDGMENT : 1. The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 19.11.1991 at Mysore as per their customs. For sometime thereafter, they led a happy marital life. According to the husband, the wife was highly possessive and never adjusted to the family atmosphere and lived with him only for 72 days in two different spells. She left the matrimonial home on 13.03.1992 and refused to return. He, having no other alternative, filed a divorce petition in M.C. No. 104/1992 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Thereafter the matter was transferred to the Family Court at Mysore, wherein it was renumbered as M.C. No. 92/1998. On contest, the petition was dismissed. 2. In the interregnum, the wife had filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. That was also dismissed. She also filed a petition seeking maintenance which was allowed. After dismissal of the earlier petition seeking for divorce, the present petition in M.C. No. 124/2008 is filed seeking a decree of divorce. On contest, the Family Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition. Hence the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is bad in law and requests to set aside the said order. He has further contended that the Family Court has failed to consider the material on record and the evidence let in by the parties. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. 5. The facts would show that the husband had earlier filed a petition in M.C. No. 104/1992 which came to be dismissed in the year 1998. A petition for maintenance filed by the wife has since been allowed. Thereafter it is his case that subsequent petitions were filed seeking for enhancement. 6. On hearing learned counsel and on perusal of the records, we are of the considered view that the impugned order does not call for interference. The facts would show that petition was earlier filed seeking for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The same was dismissed in the year 1998. Therefore the question of the husband filing a second petition on the same grounds, is not maintainable. 7. The grounds urged in the first petition are identical to the grounds urged by him in the second petition. The same was dismissed in the year 1998. Therefore the question of the husband filing a second petition on the same grounds, is not maintainable. 7. The grounds urged in the first petition are identical to the grounds urged by him in the second petition. It is also contended by the husband that the ground of cruelty is, as a result of various petitions filed by the wife against him. The cases were filed as against him seeking enhancement of maintenance etc. Therefore, these acts wherein the allegations were made not only against him but also against his mother, amounts to acts of cruelty. 8. We are unable to accept such a contention. The acts of cruelty as complained by the husband against his wife has since been alleged and considered in the earlier petition filed by the husband. Therefore they cannot constitute a ground in the second petition. The only ground urged by the learned counsel is based on the petitions filed against the husband. What is exercised by the wife is a legal right to seek enhancement of maintenance. The same would not amount to cruelty in any manner whatsoever. In the circumstances, we do not find any error committed by the Family Court that calls for interference. 9. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.