JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. - This First Appeal has been preferred by the original applicant who preferred Matrimonial Suit No.75 of 2005 for a decree of divorce against the respondent. This application preferred before the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur has been dismissed and, therefore, the original applicant has preferred this First Appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent is of unsound mind and, therefore, he is unable to live with her and after the marriage solemnized on 26th January, 2000, this appellant has started living separately from the respondent with effect from 02.06.2002. As per evidence given by this appellant Binay Kumar Choudhary as AW.1, arising out of the wedlock between this appellant and the respondent, birth of a female child has also taken place on 22nd February, 2003 and the respondent was taken to doctor frequently, but, as this appellant is a handicapped person, he has not preserved the papers of medical examination and other medical papers of the respondent. Unsoundness of the mind has also been proved before the learned Court below. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbum, Jamshedpur while dismissing the application preferred by this appellant being Matrimonial Suit No.75 of 2005 under Section 13(1) (ia)(ib) and III of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence this First Appeal has been preferred against the dismissal by the trial Court's judgment. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is a handicapped person and he cannot live with the respondent who is a person of unsound mind. The trial Court has also not gone to find out "drill of mind' or unsoundness of the mind of the respondent, but, the facts remain that she not in a mental position to live with the appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. 3. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is not an unsoundness of mind. On the contrary, the marriage was solemnized on 26th January, 2000. The birth of a daughter has also taken place on 22nd February, 2003 out of the wedlock between the parties. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. 3. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is not an unsoundness of mind. On the contrary, the marriage was solemnized on 26th January, 2000. The birth of a daughter has also taken place on 22nd February, 2003 out of the wedlock between the parties. As this appellant has himself given evidence that he has deserted the respondent on 2nd June, 2002 and unnecessary the allegation of unsoundness of mind for getting decree of divorce is levelled against the respondent. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that neither there is any oral evidence nor there is any documentary evidence before the learned Court below led by this appellant to prove the factum of unsoundness of mind of the respondent. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondent that on the contrary this appellant was demanding dowry from the parents of the respondent. This fact has also been highlighted by the learned trial Court while dismissing the application of divorce preferred by this appellant. Even this appellant has admitted the fact of receipt of amount from the mother-in-law of this appellant. As the burden was upon this appellant and he has not discharged his burden of proof, no error has been committed by the Principal Judge, Family court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedcpur in dismissing the application for getting a decree of divorce preferred by this appellant. Hence, this First Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this First Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: - (i) The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on Republic Day of the year 2000. Out of the wedlock between these parties of this First Appeal, there was birth of a daughter on 22nd February, 2003 and thereafter in the year 2005, the application was preferred by this appellant for getting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, desertion and unsoundness of mind of the respondent. (ii) We have perused the evidence given by the appellant as AW.1. Looking to the deposition of this AW.1, he has clearly stated that he has deserted his wife on 2nd June, 2002. (ii) We have perused the evidence given by the appellant as AW.1. Looking to the deposition of this AW.1, he has clearly stated that he has deserted his wife on 2nd June, 2002. It has also been admitted by the appellant in his deposition that he has no documentary evidence about the medical prescriptions or medical evidence or medical examination of the respondent proving the factum of unsoundness of mind of the respondent. (iii) Further, looking to the evidence of AW.1 of this appellant in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of his deposition during cross-examination, he has admitted that he has no evidence of unsoundness of mind of the respondent. He has deserted his wife and he has received Rs.7000/- from his mother-in-law. Looking to the totality of the evidence given by AW.1, he has not proved any of the grounds for getting decree of divorce from the trial Court. On the contrary, this appellant has deserted his wife and has also received Rs.7000/- from his mother-in-law, which is alleged by the respondent as the receipt of dowry. (iv) Looking to the deposition given by Aniket Sinha, AW.2, it is stated that he has no knowledge when the marriage was solemnized. Even he has no knowledge whether this appellant has any daughter or not. He appears to be a hearsay witness. Moreover, looking closely to the evidence given by Aniket Sinha, AW.2, who has been examined on behalf of the appellant, he has clearly stated that on one day, this appellant came at his residence and he conveyed the AW.2 that as he is a handicapped person, he is unable to keep the responsibility of the daughter. Thus, his inability has been mentioned by AW.2 which has nothing to do with the unsoundness of mind of the respondent. Thus, AW.2 has also not proved any of the grounds for decree of divorce. On the contrary, he has given evidence that the appellant himself is a handicapped person and he is unable to keep his own daughter. (v) Looking to the deposition given by Iftekhar Ahmad Khan, AW.3, including his cross-examination, nothing is proved by this witness in favour of the appellant, much less of unsoundness of mind of the respondent. His deposition has given an impression that this appellant wanted to keep his own daughter, but, he had handed over the daughter to mother-in-law of this appellant. His deposition has given an impression that this appellant wanted to keep his own daughter, but, he had handed over the daughter to mother-in-law of this appellant. (vi) Thus, looking the totality of the evidence before the trial Court, no ground for grant of decree of divorce has been proved by this appellant. Neither there is any documentary evidence nor there is any oral evidence proving the ground of grant of divorce. On the contrary, there is an allegation by the respondent about the demand of dowry and looking to paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the cross-examination of this appellant, he has also accepted RS.7000/- from his mother-in-law. (vi) Looking to the totality of evidence on record, unsoundness of the mind of the respondent has not been proved, nor the appellant has proved the desertion by the respondent. On the contrary, this respondent wanted to stay with the appellant at any how. Hence, no error has been committed by the trial Court in dismissing the application preferred by this appellant and we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the trial Court while dismissing the Matrimonial Suit No.75 of 2005 order dated 04.03.2010. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, there is no substance in this First Appeal and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within four weeks from today. Appeal dismissed.