JUDGMENT : Vasanti A. Naik, J. 1. By this family court appeal, the appellant-husband challenges the judgment of the learned District Judge 7, Nagpur, dated 07.09.2013 dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Section 10(1)(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. 2. The appellant husband and the respondent wife were married at Sadar, Nagpur as per the Christian custom on 01.10.2003. The appellant was originally from Shirthadi, Mangalore, in the State of Karnataka and the respondent was a resident of Nagpur. The parties resided together for some time at Nagpur after the marriage. A son named Marshall was born from the wedlock. At the relevant time, the appellant was serving with the government in Nagpur and after his retirement on 31.08.2008, the appellant started residing at Shirthadi. According to the appellant, the respondent's behaviour was objectionable since the inception of the marriage. It is pleaded by the appellant in the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion that the respondent did not show any love and affection towards him. It is pleaded that the respondent was in the habit of developing illicit relationship with strangers despite strong objection of the appellant. It is pleaded that the respondent used to frequently quarrel with the appellant and also assault him on some occasions. It is pleaded that the respondent was in the habit of going to her parental home unnecessarily without the permission of the appellant. It is pleaded that in October 2005, the respondent went to her parental home for the delivery of the child and did not return to the matrimonial home. It is pleaded that the parties were living separately for more than two years when the petition was filed in the month of April 2009 and the appellant was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It was pleaded that the respondent would abuse the appellant in filthy language and sometimes assault the appellant with iron rod and stick. It is pleaded that when the appellant was asleep in the bedroom, the respondent used to bring the cooking gas cylinder in the bedroom with a view to injure the life of the appellant. It is pleaded that sometimes the respondent used to try to inflict serious injuries on the appellant with the knife. It is pleaded that when the appellant was asleep in the bedroom, the respondent used to bring the cooking gas cylinder in the bedroom with a view to injure the life of the appellant. It is pleaded that sometimes the respondent used to try to inflict serious injuries on the appellant with the knife. It is pleaded that the acts on the part of the respondent resulted in the deterioration of the health of the appellant and he suffered from heart problem. It is pleaded that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down and the appellant is, therefore, entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 3. The respondent filed the written statement and denied the claim of the appellant. Every adverse allegation that was made by the appellant against the respondent was denied by the respondent. It is pleaded by the respondent in the specific pleadings that the marriage between the parties was settled by the consent of the parties and at the relevant time, the appellant was working as a professor in the Hislop college. It is pleaded that the appellant was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor, he used to compare the respondent with his two former wives and used to abuse and insult her. It is pleaded that the appellant used to fight with the respondent on trivial issues and used to beat her in the fit of anger. It is pleaded that in the presence of public, the appellant used to insult her by saying that she cannot give birth to a child. It is pleaded that when the uncle of the respondent expired in April, 2005, the appellant quarrelled with the respondent and objected to her visit to her uncle's place. It is pleaded that the appellant used to abuse the respondent in filthy language in the presence of his students and used to say that the respondent was his daughter and not his wife. It is pleaded that the appellant sent the respondent to her parental home when she was in the seventh month of the pregnancy and never came to take back the respondent to the matrimonial home after the child was delivered. It is pleaded that the appellant sent the respondent to her parental home when she was in the seventh month of the pregnancy and never came to take back the respondent to the matrimonial home after the child was delivered. It is pleaded that after the maternal aunt of the respondent dropped her to the matrimonial home, the appellant used to leave the matrimonial home and remain out of the house for four to five days and also granted leave to his servants during the days when he was out of the house. It is pleaded that the appellant used to misbehave with the maidservant whom he had engaged for performing his body massage. It is pleaded that after the retirement of the appellant, the parties started residing in Kashi Patna village of Mangalore. It is pleaded that the appellant used to keep the respondent and the son alone in the house which was located in a forest. It is pleaded that the appellant resided with the respondent till the month of March, 2009 and in April, 2009, he dropped the respondent to the railway station to reach her to Nagpur. It is pleaded that since the respondent had neither treated the appellant with cruelty nor had the parties separated for two years, a decree of divorce should not be granted in favour of the appellant. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge 7, Nagpur framed the issues. The appellant examined himself and also examined Vijay Gurwa, who was working as a domestic worker in the farm of the appellant in Karnataka. The respondent examined herself and closed the evidence on her side. On an appreciation of the evidence of the parties, the learned District Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for a decree of divorce. The learned District Judge held that the appellant was unsuccessful in proving that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty. The learned District Judge held that the parties had not separated for a period of two years before the institution of the proceedings by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and, hence, the appellant was not entitled to a decree under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act. 5. The learned District Judge held that the parties had not separated for a period of two years before the institution of the proceedings by the husband for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and, hence, the appellant was not entitled to a decree under Section 10(1)(ix) of the Divorce Act. 5. Shri Khare, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the learned District Judge was not justified in refusing to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that the parties had lastly resided together in the year 2007 and the learned District Judge erroneously held that the parties had not resided separately for a period of two years preceding the date of filing of the petition. It is stated that the admissions of the respondent in her cross-examination are not considered by the learned District Judge in the right perspective while refusing to grant the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It is submitted that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down and though there was an attempt in the year 2011 to consider whether there was a possibility of a settlement between the parties and though the parties started residing at Mangalore in different houses which were at a distance of four kilometers from each other, the said attempt did not materialize. It is submitted that since the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down, it would be necessary to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce. It is submitted that the appellant and his witness Vijay Gurwa have proved that the respondent had maintained illicit relationship with Mr. Ranganna. It is submitted that in the circumstances of the case, this Court may grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant. 6. Shri Kolhe, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the learned District Judge. It is submitted that the learned District Judge has rightly held that a decree of divorce could not have been granted on the ground of desertion as the parties had resided together in the year 2008 and 2009 and the petition was filed by the appellant in the State of Karnataka in April, 2009 and the same was subsequently transferred to Nagpur and registered as such, in the year 2010. It is submitted that since the parties had not separated for a period of two years before the filing of the petition, a decree of divorce was rightly refused on the ground of desertion. It is submitted that the learned District Judge has rightly held that the respondent had not treated the appellant with cruelty. It is stated that the evidence tendered by the appellant in regard to the illicit relationship of the respondent with Mr. Ranganna is extremely vague and unsatisfactory and the learned District Judge has, therefore, rightly rejected the same. It is submitted that the allegations of the appellant about the nonperformance of the marital duties by the respondent are also vague and general and the learned District Judge has rightly held that the appellant had failed to prove his case in that regard. It is submitted that there was no evidence to prove that the respondent had subjected the appellant with cruelty and the petition filed by the appellant was, therefore, rightly dismissed. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the Record & Proceedings, it appears that the following points arise for determination in this family Court appeal. (i) Whether the appellant proved that the respondent had treated him with cruelty? (ii) Whether the appellant proved that the respondent had deserted him? (iii) Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce under Section 10(1) (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act? (iv) What order? 8. To answer the aforesaid points for determination, it would be necessary to consider the pleadings of the parties and the evidence tendered by them. We have narrated the pleadings of the parties in the earlier part of the judgment. The appellant examined himself and reiterated the facts stated by him in his petition, in his examination in chief. It is stated by the appellant in his evidence that the parties were residing separately for a period of two years before the institution of the petition. It is pleaded that the respondent did not have just and reasonable excuse for residing away from him. It is stated by the appellant that the wife had failed to perform the marital duties and obligations. It is stated that the respondent used to quarrel with him and also assault him. It is stated that the respondent always visited her parents despite the objection of the appellant. It is stated by the appellant that the wife had failed to perform the marital duties and obligations. It is stated that the respondent used to quarrel with him and also assault him. It is stated that the respondent always visited her parents despite the objection of the appellant. It is stated that the respondent used to assault the appellant with a rod or a stick. It is stated that the respondent used to abuse him in filthy language and some times used to bring the cooking gas cylinder in the bedroom so as to cause injury to his life and limb. It is stated that the respondent some times tried to inflict injury on the body of the appellant with the help of the knife. The appellant stated that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down and a decree of divorce may be passed in his favour. The appellant was cross examined on behalf of the respondent. The appellant admitted in his cross examination that he had retired from service on 31.8.2008 and had started residing at Mangalore with the respondent. This admission on the part of the appellant falsifies his case that the respondent had deserted him for a period of two years before the filing of the petition in April, 2009. The appellant had admitted that the respondent and his son went to Nagpur from Karnataka in the month of April, 2009. It is admitted by the appellant that during the pendency of the proceedings, the deed of settlement was executed between the parties and the parties were residing in Karnataka State, in different houses which were 4 kilometers away from each other. The appellant admitted that the respondent was his third wife and the marriage between him and his two former wives was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The appellant admitted that when the respondent's brother came to Mangalore, the appellant had lodged a report in respect of theft against the respondent's brother in the police station. The appellant denied the suggestion that the respondent did not have habit of developing relations with the strangers. The appellant stated that he had no desire to live with the respondent even if she desired to stay with him. 9. The appellant examined Vijay Gurwa as his witness. The said witness was cultivating the farm and fields of the appellant. The appellant denied the suggestion that the respondent did not have habit of developing relations with the strangers. The appellant stated that he had no desire to live with the respondent even if she desired to stay with him. 9. The appellant examined Vijay Gurwa as his witness. The said witness was cultivating the farm and fields of the appellant. Vijay stated in his evidence that he learnt from Smt. Bijakre that the respondent was having an illicit relationship with Mr. Ranganna when she was staying with the appellant. Vijay stated in his evidence that in 2008, the respondent took up quarrel with the appellant and left the matrimonial house at Shirthadi, Mangalore. Vijay stated in his evidence that Mr. Ranganna with whom the respondent had an illicit relationship was a cook in the bar, which was situated near the house of the respondent. It is stated that once Mr. Ranganna had asked for the mobile number of the respondent. Vijay was cross examined on behalf of the respondent. He admitted in his cross examination that when the appellant and the respondent were residing at Shirthadi in Karnataka, Meenu and Gayatri were doing the household work. He admitted in his cross examination that for some time the appellant and the respondent were residing separately in separate houses. The witness however denied the suggestion that the respondent did not have an illicit relationship with Mr. Ranganna. 10. The respondent examined herself and stated that she was ill treated by the appellant. It was stated that the appellant used to insult her and abuse her as she was not able to conceive for some time. It is stated that the appellant used to physically and mentally harass the respondent. It is stated by the respondent in her evidence that after the marriage, she was not permitted to visit her parental home and the appellant objected if the respondent had relationship with her parents. The respondent stated that when the respondent was pregnant, the appellant used to abuse her in filthy language in the presence of the students. It is stated that the appellant did not pay a single penny for her treatment after she conceived. It is stated that the appellant was in the habit of drinking and in an intoxicated state, he used to abuse the respondent and also beat her. It is stated that the appellant did not pay a single penny for her treatment after she conceived. It is stated that the appellant was in the habit of drinking and in an intoxicated state, he used to abuse the respondent and also beat her. It is stated that in Karnataka though their house was located in the midst of the forest, the appellant left the respondent in the house and remained away for four to five days. The respondent was cross examined on behalf of the appellant. She stated in the cross examination that the appellant had levelled false allegation of theft against her brother when he had been to Mangalore. The respondent stated in her cross examination that the appellant was interested only in their son and not the respondent. It is stated in the cross examination that the appellant deliberately filed false complaints against the respondent and her relatives at Mangalore to seek the transfer of the matter from Nagpur to Mangalore. The respondent admitted in her cross examination that she resided with the appellant in Mangalore till 2009. She admitted that after 2009 the parties resided separately. The respondent denied that she was acquainted with Mr. Ranganna. She stated in her cross examination that she had not heard his name and she did not have any illicit relationship with him. The respondent admitted that there was a great difference of age between the appellant and the respondent. 11. The learned District Judge appreciated the evidence tendered by the parties to hold that the appellant had failed to prove that the parties were residing separately for a period of two years prior to the institution of the petition. The petition was instituted in Karnataka in April, 2009 and it was necessary for the appellant to prove that the parties had separated before April, 2007. The appellant has admitted in his cross examination that he retired from service on 31.8.2008 and thereafter went to Mangalore and started residing with the respondent. He further admitted in his evidence that the respondent and his son went to Nagpur in April, 2009. The case of the appellant that the parties had separated two years before the institution of the proceedings is falsified by the admissions of the appellant in his cross examination. The said fact is further falsified by the evidence of Vijay in his cross examination. The case of the appellant that the parties had separated two years before the institution of the proceedings is falsified by the admissions of the appellant in his cross examination. The said fact is further falsified by the evidence of Vijay in his cross examination. Vijay had admitted in his cross examination that Meenu and Gayatri were doing the household work in the house in Karnataka when the respondent was residing with the appellant at Shirthadi. Apart from the evidence of the respondent, the evidence of the appellant and his witness Vijay, specially the admissions in their cross examination have falsified the case of the appellant that the parties were residing separately for a period of two years before the institution of the proceedings. The learned District Judge rightly held that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had deserted the appellant and was residing away from him for a period of two years before the institution of the proceedings. The parties resided together till they separated just before the institution of the proceedings by the appellant in Karnataka. There is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned District Judge on the issue of desertion. 12. In respect of the ground of cruelty, the learned District Judge has rightly held that the appellant had failed to substantiate that the respondent had treated him with cruelty. The learned District Judge rightly held that the appellant had levelled baseless allegations against the respondent in respect of her extramarital affairs with Mr. Ranganna. Apart from the bald words of the appellant and some vague statements in the evidence of Vijay, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent had illicit relationship with Mr. Ranganna. Vijay has stated in his evidence that once Ranganna had asked for the phone number of the respondent. Ranganna is stated to be a cook and if he asked for the phone number of the respondent, it cannot be said that the respondent had illicit relationship with Mr. Ranganna. Mr. Ranganna would have had the number of the respondent if there was an illicit relationship and Mr. Ranganna would not have asked for the same from Vijay. Though Vijay had stated that he had learnt from Smt. Bijakre that the respondent had illicit relationship with Mr. Ranganna, the appellant has not examined Smt. Bijakre. Ranganna. Mr. Ranganna would have had the number of the respondent if there was an illicit relationship and Mr. Ranganna would not have asked for the same from Vijay. Though Vijay had stated that he had learnt from Smt. Bijakre that the respondent had illicit relationship with Mr. Ranganna, the appellant has not examined Smt. Bijakre. In any case, on the basis of such bald allegations, it cannot be said that the respondent was in the habit of developing relationship with strangers and had an illicit relationship with Mr. Ranganna. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence in respect of the illicit relationship, it would be necessary to hold that the appellant has not proved the said case pleaded by him. There is evidence on record to show that when the brother of the respondent came to Shirthadi, Mangalore, the appellant lodged the police complaint against him in respect of theft. It is difficult to believe that the brother of a woman would steal or commit theft in her house and even if he so commits, it is difficult to believe that the husband would lodge a police complaint. Even if a theft is committed by the brother of the wife, a husband would, at the most drive out the brother from his house but normally a police complaint would not be filed. It appears that the police complaint was lodged by the appellant at the relevant time in Karnataka merely with a view to ensure that some proceedings are initiated in Karnataka, so that the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce is not transferred to Nagpur where the respondent resides. We find that the allegations levelled by the appellant against the respondent are reckless. Apart from the bare words of the appellant there is nothing on record to show that the respondent used to beat him with iron rod or stick. If that was so, the appellant would have surely complained about it to the police. Also, the appellant would not have dared to compromise the matter with the respondent in the year 2011 during the pendency of the proceedings at Nagpur, if the respondent had frequently assaulted him with iron rod and stick. If that was so, the appellant would have surely complained about it to the police. Also, the appellant would not have dared to compromise the matter with the respondent in the year 2011 during the pendency of the proceedings at Nagpur, if the respondent had frequently assaulted him with iron rod and stick. It is difficult to believe the case of the appellant that the respondent used to bring the cooking gas cylinder in the bedroom so as to cause injury to the life and limb of the appellant and some times, the respondent tried to injure the appellant with the help of a knife. These allegations appear to be imaginary and they are not supported by any evidence except the bare words of the appellant. If the respondent had brought the cooking gas cylinder in the bedroom when the appellant was asleep or if the respondent had tried to injure him with a knife in the year 2004-2005, it is difficult to believe that the appellant would reside with the respondent and take her to Mangalore after he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation in August, 2008. The parties resided together firstly at Nagpur and then at Mangalore till they separated in the month of April, 2009. Immediately after the parties separated, the appellant instituted the proceedings for a decree of divorce under Section 10 (1) (ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act. The learned District Judge, on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record has rightly held that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent had treated him with cruelty and had deserted him. The learned District Judge has rightly held that the parties had not separated for a period of two years before the institution of the proceedings. We find that the parties had resided together till the proceedings were instituted in April, 2009. The evidence of the appellant is not credible and a decree of divorce cannot be based on his evidence. Most part of the evidence of the appellant is falsified by the admissions of the appellant and Vijay in their cross- examination. The findings recorded by the learned District Judge are just and proper and call for no interference. 13. In the result, the Family Court Appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.