JUDGMENT : MARY JOSEPH, J. 1. The Family Court, Tirur has dismissed O.P. No. 126/2013 filed by the appellant seeking for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this appeal. The petitioner and the respondent were Hindus and their marriage was solemnized on 14.9.2008 at Thiruvengapura Mahatemple as per their religious rites. They had no issues in the wedlock. From the 4th day of marriage itself the respondent had shown symptoms of epilepsy. She fell unconscious in the bed and passed urine. She cannot identify the people then. The matter was informed to the respondent's family. The petitioner came to know later that respondent had epilepsy since 13 years and the marriage was contracted suppressing the said factum. Therefore, petition was filed by him under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 2. The respondent has filed counter statement denying the averments in the Original Petition. According to her, prior to the marriage the petitioner had contracted another marriage and on account of the death of the 1st wife that the 2nd marriage was conducted. It was contended by her that herself and her family never cheated him and the petitioner had ill-treated her with cruelty, both physically and mentally on demands of dowry. She was also ill-treated for not having a child. On 11.11.2009, she was left at her house by the petitioner without any reason. Thereafter, the petitioner did not enquire about her and was reluctant to take her back to the matrimonial home. In that context she was constrained to file M.C. No. 650/2010 seeking maintenance. 3. Before the Family Court, evidence was adduced from both sides. PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the petitioner's side. Family Court noticed that the documents originally produced as Exts.A1 to A3 before the Family Court, Malapuram were not received by it but, no steps were taken to procure those therefrom. On the respondent's side RW-1 and RW-2 were examined but, no documents were marked. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Family Court found that the petitioner failed to prove cruelty from the respondent. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 4. On the respondent's side RW-1 and RW-2 were examined but, no documents were marked. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Family Court found that the petitioner failed to prove cruelty from the respondent. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 4. On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the petitioner, it is seen that the factum that epilepsy of the respondent was the only ground raised to obtain a decree for divorce. According to the petitioner, the marriage of the respondent with him was solemnized, suppressing the factum that the latter is suffering from epilepsy from child hood. Petitioner has tendered oral evidence as PW-1 on the above aspects. According to him, in view of the frequent cycles of epilepsy, the respondent had been affected to, he find it difficult to continue his marital life with her. According to him, he was not made known at the time of marriage that the respondent is suffering from such a disease. Children were also not begotten for the reason. A witness was examined on the side of the petitioner as PW-2. He deposed that the petitioner had been suffering from epilepsy and therefore himself and the respondent started living separately. Exts.A1 to A3 marked in evidence were not found available with the case records. No description is also made by the court about those in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant is also not in a position to say anything about the nature of those documents. Ext.A4 is a prescription of Dr. Sreekrishnan issued on 26.09.2008. Exts.A5 and A5(a) are receipts from Kottakkal Aryavaidyasala for Rs. 234/-. Exts.A6, A6(a) to A6(c) are receipts from Shaheen Medical Centre, Changuvetty. Exts.A7, A7(a) to A7(e) are bills from a medical shop at Kottakkal. According to the learned counsel, the documents described above are related to the treatment of the respondent for epilepsy. Even if it is established that the petitioner is suffering from epilepsy, it will not form a ground for granting a decree for dissolution of marriage. The Family Court in its correct appreciation of evidence has found that the petitioner is not entitled to get a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. On a scrutiny of the evidence, we are also of the opinion that the petitioner failed to establish a sufficient ground to obtain a decree for dissolution of marriage. 5. Mat. The Family Court in its correct appreciation of evidence has found that the petitioner is not entitled to get a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. On a scrutiny of the evidence, we are also of the opinion that the petitioner failed to establish a sufficient ground to obtain a decree for dissolution of marriage. 5. Mat. Appeal fails for the reason and is dismissed.