JUDGMENT : In the instant appeal, appellant has questioned the validity of the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2012 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. 2. The appellant and respondent got married on 04.11.2007 in terms of Hindu customs and traditions at Sri Kengal Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Kengal, B.M.Road, Channapatna in the presence of elders of both families. They were living together for about 3 months. Thereafter, appellant – wife was not comfortable with the respondent/husband and the marriage was not consummated. The appellant asserted that respondent/husband was suffering from certain infirmities both physically and mentally in leading family life. The respondent was taking certain medicines. Those medicines were taken by the appellant to a local doctor to ascertain for what purpose such medicines are prescribed, who has opined that due to certain weakness in the body, these medicines are consumable. Thus, appellant assumed that respondent/husband could not consummate the marriage because of his weakness. It was also alleged that appellant was being harassed by the respondent/husband and members of the husband’s family. Arising out of these issues, matter was taken up before the panchayat. The respondent/husband and his family assured that mutual divorce could be made with certain conditions. Since, respondent/husband could not keep up the assurance given before the panchayath, she had deserted respondent and issued a notice on 16.11.2009 (Ex.P.4). The respondent had not furnished any reply to the appellant’s notice. Thus, the appellant filed M.C.No.1803/2010. The Family Court after appreciating the material on record, dismissed the petition. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of M.C.No.1803/2010, the appellant/wife is in appeal before this Court. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/wife is that the family Court has failed to appreciate the weakness of the respondent physically and mentally for which he was taking certain medicines so also in not appreciating the physical and mental harassment meted to the appellant both by the husband/respondent and his family members whereas it has appreciated the respondent’s version to the extent that the appellant left the husband’s home. It was also submitted that the respondent’s conduct is required to be taken into consideration as he had not submitted his reply to the notice so also not cooperated in the case before the Court below and even in the present case. It was also submitted that the respondent’s conduct is required to be taken into consideration as he had not submitted his reply to the notice so also not cooperated in the case before the Court below and even in the present case. Therefore, the judgment dated 04.09.2012 passed in M.C.No.1803/2010 is liable to be setaside and decree of divorce is to be granted. 5. None appears for the respondent – Sri Ravikumar even though he is served. 6. The core issue in the present matter is that, “Whether the appellant is entitled for decree of divorce under Section 12(b-I), (2)(i) and 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘The Act) or not?” 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent/husband could not consummate the marriage. He was taking certain medicines in order to improve or maintain physical as well as mental fitness secretly. The appellant suspected about the fitness both physical and mental of the respondent/husband in order to lead family life. Thus, she approached a local doctor to whom she had shown the medicines which were being taken by her husband. The doctor opined that those medicines which were being consumed by her husband was for the purpose of physical fitness. The appellant drew inference that her husband cannot consummate the marriage. Consequently, the marriage life could not be materialized. Arising out of these issues, certain disputes arose among the appellant and the respondent which was the subject matter before the panchayath, wherein it was agreed that the parties would go for mutual divorce. 8. The respondent/husband failed to comply with the decision agreed to before the panchayath. Thus, she issued a notice for divorce on 16.11.2009 for which the respondent has not submitted his reply so also not cooperated before the Court below as well as before this Court. These allegations could have been appreciated for the purpose of determining, whether the appellant has faced cruelty from the respondent/husband or not, provided there was necessary materials to show that what is the name of the medicines, written opinion of the doctor. Moreover, the respondent/husband was not subjected to mental examination so also there is no report as such. That apart, appellant has left the matrimonial home within three months from the date of the marriage. Moreover, the respondent/husband was not subjected to mental examination so also there is no report as such. That apart, appellant has left the matrimonial home within three months from the date of the marriage. Further, there is no material relating to prove the harassment meted out to the appellant by the husband or his family members. Appellant has examined herself as PW1, One Mr.D.R.Satish as PW2 and Shankaregowda as PW3 who are interested witnesses. Except self serving statement, no document or corroborating evidence is adduced with reference to the allegations. One cannot draw inference that there is cruelty meted out by the husband/respondent on the appellant. Therefore, the contention of the appellant to the extent that Court below has not appreciated her contention to the extent of not consummation of marriage as well as physical and mental harassment by the respondent/husband cannot be accepted. 9. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, there is no infirmity in the order dated 04.09.2012 passed by the Family Court in M.C.No.1803/2010. Since, appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.