JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot in MC No.6/2011, whereby the Trial Court has rejected the petition filed by him under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the appellant/petitioner having married on 3.12.2007. From the wedlock, one female child born by name Vijayalaxmi. Further, it is the case of the appellant that from the beginning, the differences arose between the appellant and respondent. It is alleged that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder, which was not disclosed to him before the marriage and she was suffering from unsound mind, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner only after the marriage and he also came to know that it is not curable disease. According to the appellant/petitioner, the respondent had no sense of living like a wife in the matrimonial home and the respondent could not keep herself clean and would not put-up cloths properly, which causes the appellant/petitioner cruelty and disturbance. Further, the appellant/petitioner had stated that he is ready to take the custody of his daughter and according to him, the respondent has left the child at her parental house. On these grounds, the appellant/petitioner filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act for dissolution of the marriage. 3. On issuance of the summons, the respondent herein appeared before the Trial Court and denied the averments made in the petition as false, frivolous and vexatious, but admitted the marriage and also accepted that they have a female child by name Vijayalaxmi out of their wedlock. Further, the respondent stated in her reply that her brother had given 40 gms. gold and Rs.85,000/-as dowry to the petitioner in front of the elders at the time of the marriage. Further, she has stated that certain golden ornaments were also given by her brother during Simant ceremony. During her pregnancy, she came to her parental house and after birth of their child, the petitioner never took the respondent to the matrimonial home. gold and Rs.85,000/-as dowry to the petitioner in front of the elders at the time of the marriage. Further, she has stated that certain golden ornaments were also given by her brother during Simant ceremony. During her pregnancy, she came to her parental house and after birth of their child, the petitioner never took the respondent to the matrimonial home. With a hope that the petitioner would take care of her and her child, she tolerated the cruelty and torture meted out by the petitioner. The Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties formulated the following two points for consideration: (i) Whether the petitioner proves that, after the solemnization of marriage, the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? (ii) Whether the petitioner further proves that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a period of more than 2 years? 4. The petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P3 and the respondent examined herself as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 and R2. The Trial Court after considering material on record both oral and documentary has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record in support of the grounds urged by the petitioner for divorce, accordingly, it has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant. Against the dismissal of the petition, the appeal is presented by the appellant/husband praying to allow the petition filed by him under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original records. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court should be interfered with or not? 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent is of unsound mind which was not disclosed to the petitioner at the time of the marriage. Only when she came to matrimonial home, due to her behavior it was found that she was suffering from mental disorder. Further it is the specific case of the appellant/petitioner that her behavior and also not putting-up proper clothes, caused cruelty and disturbance to the appellant/petitioner. In support of his contention, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and also his brother Sri. Ningappa Ankhandappa Kuri examined as PW2. Further it is the specific case of the appellant/petitioner that her behavior and also not putting-up proper clothes, caused cruelty and disturbance to the appellant/petitioner. In support of his contention, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and also his brother Sri. Ningappa Ankhandappa Kuri examined as PW2. In his evidence, PW1 states that the respondent does not understand the responsibility of housewife and have no sense of living like wife in the matrimonial home. These aspects have not been looked into by the Trial Court while rejecting the petition filed by the appellant. The Trial Court without appreciating the material available on record has rejected the petition filed by the appellant/husband. Hence, he prays for allowing this appeal by setting-aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife supports the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court. He further submitted that the evidence of the husband and his witness is nothing but exaggeration only to make out a case for divorce. No evidence has been adduced by the husband to prove that she is suffering from incurable mental disorder, which would entitle the husband for decree of divorce. He also submits that the Trial Court after analyzing oral and documentary evidence of both sides has come to a conclusion that the appellant/husband has failed to prove the alleged ground of cruelty and desertion and accordingly, had rejected the petition filed by the husband. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the husband confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Except statement of PW1 and PW2, no documents whatsoever have been produced to prove the allegation of the petitioner against the respondent that she is of unsound mind and suffering from mental disorder. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S Dastane, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 has held as follows: 23. xxx…x.xxxxx…x.x.xxxx… First, as to the nature of burden of proof which rests on a petitioner in a matrimonial petition under the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S Dastane, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 has held as follows: 23. xxx…x.xxxxx…x.x.xxxx… First, as to the nature of burden of proof which rests on a petitioner in a matrimonial petition under the Act. Doubtless, the burden must lie on the petitioner to establish his or her case for, ordinarily, the burden lies on the party which affirms a fact, not on the party which denies it. This principle accords with commonsense as it is so much easier to prove a positive than a negative. The petitioner must therefore prove that the respondent has treated him with cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(b) of the Act. ….xxx….xxx…xxxx..xxxx..x.x.x.x….. 10. In the instant case, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove the allegations of unsound mind and mental disorder of the respondent. The petitioner in his cross-examination by the respondent has stated as under: “Any Other Language” 11. The above statement of the petitioner makes it clear that the respondent was not suffering from any mental disorder or unsound mind. Further, it is clear that the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate or records relating to the respondent to substantiate his allegation. On the other hand, the respondent examined herself as RW1. The petitioner has failed to elicit any material in the cross-examination. Further, she denied the suggestion that she is not capable of living with the petitioner. 12. As regards the ground of desertion, the petitioner has not stated anything either in the petition or in his evidence. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the respondent that during her pregnancy, she went to her parental house and after she gave birth to a female child, the petitioner never cared to bring back the respondent to the matrimonial home. As the appellant/petitioner has failed to prove the allegations of cruelty and desertion against the respondent with cogent evidence, the petitioner/husband has not made out any case to allow this appeal. Therefore, the petitioner/husband has failed to fulfill the ingredients of Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Act. 13. Viewed from any angle, we do not find any error in the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court warranting interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.