JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The present appellant had instituted a matrimonial case against the present respondent before the Family Court, Vijayapur (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'Family Court') in MVC No.216/2014 under Sec. 13(1), (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking the relief of dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. 2. The summary of the case of the petitioner in the Family Court was that by birth the petitioner is specially abled person (a polio attack person), knowing the said fact the respondent married him on the date 15/7/2005. However after the marriage she refused to cohabit with him, as such the marriage remained without any consummation. Refusing to stay with her husband, the respondent lived separately for about two years in her parental house. Though the pancahyat was held in that regard, the same did not yield any result and she did not return. However, though she came to live with him later for a short duration then also she was not taking care of the husband properly and was quarreling with the brothers and in-laws in whose joint family the petitioner was residing in their form house. It is also alleged in the petition that she was insisting him to establish a separate house in a Tanda and instead of form house and away from his brothers and parents. It is further the contention of the petitioner that finding lack of compatibility with his family members she deserted him and did not even visit the hospital when as an inpatient he was taking treatment in the hospital at Vijayapur for his kidney problem. He has further stated that in order to harass him, the respondent has filed a complaint under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'D.V.Act') in the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Vijayapura and also living separately for no valid reason. With this, he has prayed for an order of dissolution of marriage on the ground of alleged cruelty and desertion. 3. The respondent appeared through her counsel in the Family Court filed her written statement wherein she has denied the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition. With this, he has prayed for an order of dissolution of marriage on the ground of alleged cruelty and desertion. 3. The respondent appeared through her counsel in the Family Court filed her written statement wherein she has denied the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition. Except denying the allegations made therein she has not stated her version of the case and also has not given any reason for she alleged to have stayed away from the company of her husband. However, she stated that her husband is capable of earning and has been running a sugar cane crushing business and he is earning Rs.30,000.00 per month and he has also got landed properties at Bhutanal Village, which lands are irrigated lands. 4. In support of his contention the petitioner in the Family Court got himself examined as PW.1 and got examined his mother Smt.Motibai as PW.2, got marked the documents from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The respondent (wife) got herself examined as RW.1. After hearing both side the Family Court by its judgment dtd. 2/2/2016 dismissed the matrimonial case with cost. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in the Family Court has filed the present petition. 5. In response to the notice the respondent is being represented by her counsel. The Family Court records were called for and same are placed before this Court. 6. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before the Court including the impugned judgment and the entire Trial Court record. 7. The only point that arises for our consideration is ;- "Whether the judgment under appeal warrants any interference at the hands of this Court ?" 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his brief argument submitted that despite effort made by the appellant to have a peaceful marital life with his wife, the respondent did not respond properly, as such, for more than a decade they are living separately. It is at the fault of the respondent, she deserted the company of her husband, however, the said aspect was not noticed by the Trial Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent in his very brief argument submitted that the impugned judgment is a reasoned one and does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court, however, he conceded that since few years the husband and wife are living separately. MFA No.200439/2016 10. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent in his very brief argument submitted that the impugned judgment is a reasoned one and does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court, however, he conceded that since few years the husband and wife are living separately. MFA No.200439/2016 10. The petitioner in the Family Court in his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence has reiterated the contention taken up by him in his memorandum of petition and reiterated that after his marriage with respondent on 15/7/2005 the respondent did not join him and did not lead marital life. He has stated that he being a person affected with polio has been a dependant throughout upon his brothers and mother, the respondent knew the fact that he was polio patient and still agreed to marry him, however it is only after marriage showing no reason she has been staying away from him. He also stated that the attempts made to bring her back did not yield any positive result, on the other hand, blatantly she has refused to come back and sent panchas also back by stating that she is not joining her husband. He also stated that while he was in Sanjeevini Hospital at Vijayapur as an inpatient in connection with some problem with the functioning of his kidneys then also his wife i.e., the respondent did not went to the hospital to see him. In his support, he has produced the medical prescriptions and patient card, the medical bill and the receipts including the copy of the discharge card and got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 to show that he is specially abled person (physically handicapped) and is possessing an identify card in that regard and he has produced the said identity card and got it marked as Ex.P.5. Further stating that the respondent had also filed a case against him in Criminal Miscellaneous No.225/2015, he has produced a certified copy of the deposition of the present respondent as petitioner witness No.1 in the said criminal case in the Family Court at Vijayapur. 11. Further stating that the respondent had also filed a case against him in Criminal Miscellaneous No.225/2015, he has produced a certified copy of the deposition of the present respondent as petitioner witness No.1 in the said criminal case in the Family Court at Vijayapur. 11. In the cross-examination of PW.1 the denial suggestions were made which were not admitted as true by the witness, however at more than one place it was suggested to the witness that the respondent is ready and willing to join him even on the date of his cross-examination also, but the petitioner as PW.1 has made clear that he was not ready to take her back. 12. PW.2-Smt.Motibai the mother of the petitioner has supported the case of her son stating that her daughter-in-law i.e., the respondent is staying away and has not joined her husband and did not allow their marriage to be consummated. Even though in her cross-examination also a suggestion was made to the effect that even today the respondent was ready and willing to join her husband, the witness stated that the decision is left to her son. Though the witness stated that the petitioner (her son) was affected with polio, but still maintained that he owns landed and house properties and he is doing agricultural work. 13. The respondent who got herself examined as RW.1 has only reiterated the contents of written statement even in her examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence, she has denied all the averments made by the petitioner both in his petition as well as in his evidence as PW.1, except the same she has not stated anything more to demolish the case of the petitioner. However in her cross- examination suggestion made to her that she had subjected the petitioner and his mother to cruelty has been denied by her though she admitted that her husband i.e., the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient and had undertaken treatment including at Miraj, further proceeded to say that she was attending him while he was in the hospital as an inpatient. She denied that she was voluntarily staying away and residing separately from her husband. 14. The marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife and that their marriage was solemnized on 15/7/2015 is an admitted fact. Both PW.1 and RW.1 have reiterated the same. She denied that she was voluntarily staying away and residing separately from her husband. 14. The marital relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as husband and wife and that their marriage was solemnized on 15/7/2015 is an admitted fact. Both PW.1 and RW.1 have reiterated the same. Though the petitioner contends that after the marriage she refused to join him was specifically denied by the respondent both in her pleading as well as in her evidence, the petitioner though in his petition has stated that after the marriage, his wife has not joined him and throughout has been living separately. However at one place in his evidence he has stated that after two years the respondent came to his house to lead marital life, but she was not allowing him to have cohabitation with her. Thus, he has stated that his wife voluntarily had come to join him and was staying for sometime in his house, he has not given details as to how long she continued to stay there as his wife in his house. On the other hand, the petitioner has made statements that even during her stay in her house she was not giving respect to the elders in the family and was ill- treating them. He has also stated that she was insisting him to make a separate house away from their form house and to establish a house in the Tanda. He further stated that during their cohabitation she had even pushed his mother (PW.2) and made her to fall. Thus, she had exerted the act of cruelty even against his mother also. However, all these statements of the petitioner as well as PW.1 are categorically denied by the respondent both in her written statement as well in her evidence as RW.1. 15. When the petitioner has made allegations that she was subjecting him to cruelty and also had practiced such an act of cruelty against his mother it is not sufficient to make a mere allegation without mentioning any such instances though not all the instances, but atleast some of them. However, nowhere the petitioner either in his petition or in his evidence has stated as to what acts of cruelty she has exerted upon him and his family members. He has not even stated as to how he concluded that she was showing disrespect to his bothers and mother in the house. However, nowhere the petitioner either in his petition or in his evidence has stated as to what acts of cruelty she has exerted upon him and his family members. He has not even stated as to how he concluded that she was showing disrespect to his bothers and mother in the house. Similarly, even though the petitioner in his petition as well in his evidence as PW.1 stated that his wife i.e., the respondent had subjected his mother also to cruelty and in one such instance had pushed her and made her fall down, but has not stated when it was and under what circumstance. Since the respondent has categorically denied the said alleged act then it was incumbent upon the petitioner to come up with more details to corroborate his contention and evidence to show that the respondent was behaving in a different manner in his family and was subjecting them either to physical or mental cruelly. As such mere making an averment and further mere making suggestion to that effect to the opposite side witness is not sufficient to hold that such an allegation as stood established, that too particularly when the respondent has specifically and categorically denied all those averments made, in her written statement and all those suggestions in her cross-examination. As such, even though the respondent residing separately since sometime is not in dispute, but the same cannot be considered as an act of cruelty meted to her husband or as desertion by her of her husband. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the respondent had any intention to live separately and away from her husband. On the contrary, the respondent has stated that throughout she was ready and willing to join her husband however they did not allow her to join him. Though she has not stated any reasons as to refusal for she joining her husband, but she stated about the panchayats said to have been held in that regard. To the height of the same, in the cross-examination of PW.1 a suggestion was made to the witness from the respondent's side suggesting to the witness that even on the date of the cross-examination of PW.1 also the respondent was ready and willing to join him and to lead a marital life. To the height of the same, in the cross-examination of PW.1 a suggestion was made to the witness from the respondent's side suggesting to the witness that even on the date of the cross-examination of PW.1 also the respondent was ready and willing to join him and to lead a marital life. The witness has replied stating that since she has been staying away for about four to five years, he is not ready to live with her. Thus, the witness made it very clear that even though his wife was ready to join him, but he was not ready not for any other reason that she was cruel some to himself and to his family members, but only for the reason that she was staying away for few years. A mere alleged staying away for few years cannot be an act of desertion unless he shows that she had any intention to live separately and away from him. However as observed above, nowhere the witness has whispered either in the form of pleading or in the form of evidence about the alleged intention of his wife (respondent) that she was not intended to live with him and her intention was to stay away from him. 16. A suggestion to the effect that respondent (wife) was ready and prepared to join the petitioner was also made to her mother-in-law i.e., PW.2. The witness did not say that the respondent was living separately for no valid reason, but she stated that she does not know about that and it is left to her son. Had really there been irretrievable break down of marriage or unusual behavior of the respondent including the alleged cruelty or desertion, PW.2, who is none else than the mother-in-law of respondent, would have stated that the intention of the respondent was not to come back and stay with her husband and that her son (petitioner) had valid reason for not receiving her back. Thus, the respondent commencing from her written statement filed in the case upto the conclusion of the trial has throughout maintained that she has always been ready and willing to join her husband, however they are not entertaining her or allowing her to stay with her husband. 17. Thus, the respondent commencing from her written statement filed in the case upto the conclusion of the trial has throughout maintained that she has always been ready and willing to join her husband, however they are not entertaining her or allowing her to stay with her husband. 17. The above inference gains support for one more reason that admittedly the respondent has filed a maintenance case and according to the petitioner, she has also invoked the provisions under the D.V.Act and instituted a proceeding thereunder. Her allegation is that even though she was ready to join her husband he is not allowing her, on the other hand, even during her stay for couple of years in her matrimonial home she was subjected to domestic violence by her husband and his family members. According to her this constrained her to invoke the provision of the D.V.Act. Incidentally, since she was living separately and away from her husband she has filed a criminal petition seeking maintenance also, which is also an admitted fact. However, the present appellant as PW.1 in the Family Court has admitted a suggestion as true that it is because his wife i.e., respondent has filed against him a maintenance case as well a petition under the D.V.Act, he has filed the present petition for divorce. Thus, the petitioner in his cross- examination has shown the reason for he filing the present petition under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is as a retaliatory act for his wife filing a petition against him for maintenance and also invoking provision under the D.V.Act. Thus, except a bald allegation of alleged cruelty and desertion, the petitioner could not able to establish that the respondent has subjected him to cruelty either physical or mental or deserted him for no valid reasons. On the contrary, it is the petitioner himself, as shown by him in is cross-examination, because of her instituting a petition seeking maintenance from him and also invoking provision under the D.V.Act, has instituted the present petition seeking dissolution of the marriage. Since the Family Court though not in the detail manner, but on the above lines has reasoned its judgment appropriately and arrived at a proper finding of dismissal of the petition of the petitioner, we do not find any reasons to interfere in it. Since the Family Court though not in the detail manner, but on the above lines has reasoned its judgment appropriately and arrived at a proper finding of dismissal of the petition of the petitioner, we do not find any reasons to interfere in it. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER The appeal stands dismissed as devoid of merits. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Family Court immediately without delay.