JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal by the husband against the judgment and decree, dated 03-01-2015, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, in M.C.No.216/2013, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the petition filed by him under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1890 seeking a decree of divorce on ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the appellant having married on 24-05-1991 at Chikkamagaluru as per the Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the appellant was living at Tumkuru; he was running a petty shop for his livelihood. According to the appellant, on the first night of their marriage, the respondent disclosed that she is in love with her aunt’s son, Jagadish, and that she was forcibly married to the appellant. On hearing the same, he was disturbed; he informed the same to the elders in the family, who advised him to forget and forgive the respondent, and lead a normal married life. It is further stated by the appellant that the respondent used to praise other men’s personality in front of him, which hurt him, and led to mental cruelty. The appellant further alleged that the respondent, in order to help her brother financially, used to steal money from the shop which he was running. 3. According to the appellant, on 25-02-1992, she gave birth to a girl baby, and she stayed in her parents’ house for a year. She came back only in the year 1993. The appellant further stated that the respondent is a quarrelsome lady, and used to address the appellant in offensive language, which disturbed his mental peace. In 1993, she once again became pregnant, but due to her carelessness, she gave birth to a dead foetus. Further, the respondent’s brother used to abuse the appellant, and assault him for the reasons best known to him. The respondent and her brother subjected the appellant to extreme cruelty and harassment. Once again, in the year 1999, the respondent gave birth to a boy. Further, the business of the appellant was not good. Hence, he decided to shift his business from Tumkuru to Bengaluru. It is further the case of the appellant that the respondent is insensitive, and used to insult and manhandle the appellant. The respondent was also tutoring her children. Further, the business of the appellant was not good. Hence, he decided to shift his business from Tumkuru to Bengaluru. It is further the case of the appellant that the respondent is insensitive, and used to insult and manhandle the appellant. The respondent was also tutoring her children. It is alleged that his daughter, who was studying in II PUC, used to call somebody over the telephone, and she used to talk to them. She also used to send messages to somebody. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent-wife did not take proper care of the daughter. It is his case that they hatched a criminal conspiracy, and lodged a complaint against the appellant, in Crime No.205/2010, under Section 498A of the IPC. These incidents, according to the appellant, proved her cruel behaviour towards him, making it impossible for him to live with her. Moreover the respondent is totally and willfully neglecting the appellant. 4. On the other hand, the respondent filed objections, admitting the marriage, but denying all the allegations made against her by the appellant. The respondent-wife stated that her brother had given Rs.3,00,000/-to the appellant to maintain the family. The appellant was always suspecting the respondent. The appellant used to quarrel with the respondent and abuse the respondent, and her daughter, without any reason. It is the case of the respondent that the appellant did not come to see her when she was pregnant, and when she was taking treatment. The appellant’s parents were also harassing her. It is particularly stated that on 30-05-2010 the appellant, and his family members, threw her out of the matrimonial house, for which she lodged a complaint against the appellant. 5. In order to prove his case the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1, and produced three documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The respondent got herself examined as R.W.1. However, no documents were produced on her behalf. 6. The learned Family Court framed the following points: (i) Whether the petitioner proves that after the solemnization of the marriage, the respondent has treated her with cruelty?; (ii) Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent after solemnization of the marriage has deserted the appellant for a continuous period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition? and (iii) What order? The learned trial Judge answered points No.1 and 2 in the negative and rejected the petition. 7. and (iii) What order? The learned trial Judge answered points No.1 and 2 in the negative and rejected the petition. 7. We have heard the arguments of Mr.M.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, and Mr.A. Madhusudan Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The appellant-husband has filed the petition before the Family Court Under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The learned Family Court, on careful examination of the material on record, both oral and documentary, has concluded that the appellant has failed to make out a case either under Section 13(1)(ia) or (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is no specific allegation of cruelty against the wife. The allegations made are very vague and there is no particular incident of cruelty. Ex.P3 is the order sheet in C.C.No.41210/2010 filed under Section 498A of IPC. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the trial is at final stage. Mere filing of criminal case, in the facts and circumstances, would not amount to cruelty. It is to be seen under what circumstances the criminal case has been filed, and no evidence was brought in to substantiate the same. The burden is heavy on the person who alleges cruelty, and in the instant case, the appellant, who alleged cruelty, has failed to substantiate the said ground by producing cogent evidence. It is the main allegation of the appellant that, on the first night of marriage, the respondent had disclosed that she was in love with her aunt’s son, Jagadish. She used to comment on the appellant with offensive language, and she had also filed a criminal case against the appellant. The appellant has failed to elicit any evidence with regard to the allegations that the respondent was in love with Jagadish. In the crossexamination, there was a suggestion to the respondent-wife in this regard for which she deposed that there is no person by the name Jagadish in her family. Only the appellant was examined as P.W.1 and he has not examined any other person to prove the allegations. The evidence of appellant is nothing but repetition of the petition averments. Hence, the appellant has failed to establish the ground of cruelty. 9. Only the appellant was examined as P.W.1 and he has not examined any other person to prove the allegations. The evidence of appellant is nothing but repetition of the petition averments. Hence, the appellant has failed to establish the ground of cruelty. 9. As far as desertion is concerned, the appellant merely stated that on 30-05-2010, the respondent had left the matrimonial home. But he has neither produced any documents, nor examined any other person to prove the said plea. On the other hand, the respondent-wife has stated that the appellant and his parents had thrown her out of the matrimonial home. Except the averment of desertion in the petition, neither any material is produced, nor anything worthwhile is elicited in the crossexamination of the respondent. 10. Going through the material on record, both oral and documentary, we are of the opinion, that the appellant has failed to make out a case either of cruelty, or of desertion. Since the appellant has failed to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence, the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.