JUDGMENT 1. Mediation has failed and we find that nobody is appearing for the respondent. Since trial Court record has been summoned we have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. The respondent sued for divorce on ground of mental cruelty and desertion. As pleaded by her, marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.11.2003. The petition seeking divorce was filed on 4.5.2013. As per the respondent the couple could not cohabit after 28.9.2009. A son born to the parties on 10.02.2007 was snatched by the appellant from the respondent and she was denied access to the child. Acts of mental cruelty pleaded were on account of alleged dowry demands by the appellant which could not be met by her parents. After filing the written statement the appellant stopped appearing and was proceeded against ex-parte. The respondent besides examining herself as her witness, examined Gyan Chand as AW-2. Gyan Chand is the father of the respondent. 3. Needless to state the respondent and her father deposed facts in sync with the averments made by the respondent in the petition seeking divorce. Since the appellant was not presented he did not cross-examine these two witnesses. It is obvious that the unchallenged testimony of the respondent and her father have formed basis of the impugned decree dated 8.2.2016. 4. The appellant did not move any application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus the appellant can question the impugned decree only with respect to the evidence on record. 5. In view of the testimony of the respondent and her father on oath which was not challenged we find no merit in the appeal and thus we affirm the decree and dismiss the appeal.