JUDGMENT S. Vishwajith Shetty, J. - These appeals are filed by the husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C. No. 1993/2006 c/w M.C. No. 30/2008. 2. The parties are referred to by the rank assigned to them before the Family Court. 3. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals are, the marriage of the petitioner-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized on 02.10.2003 as per the Hindu customs and rites. For a short period after the marriage, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and thereafter, difference of opinion cropped up between them and they started to quarrel on petty issues. The petitioner had gone to her parents house on 13.06.2004 during Ashadamasa and at that point of time, she was pregnant. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband and his parents did not thereafter bother to inquire about her health nor did they visit her. On 26.02.2005, she gave birth to a male child who was named Danush. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent did not come to see the petitioner and the newly born child, nor did he take her back to the matrimonial house. It is her further case that though efforts were made by her and her parents to settle the difference of opinion between the parties, the respondent did not co-operate. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner-wife had filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') for restitution of conjugal rights, which was numbered as M.C. No. 1993/2006. 4. Upon service of notice in the said proceedings, respondent-husband had entered appearance and filed a detailed statement of objections admitting the relationship, but denied the allegations made in the petition. He stated that he had taken proper care of the petitioner and she was regularly taken to the hospital during her pregnancy. He had also stated that he himself had admitted her in the Nursing Home for delivery and he only had met all the hospital expenses. However, the petitioner did not show any interest to join him and efforts made by him and his parents in this regard were all in vain, and accordingly, he had prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. However, the petitioner did not show any interest to join him and efforts made by him and his parents in this regard were all in vain, and accordingly, he had prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act which was numbered as M.C. No. 30/2008 seeking decree of divorce on the ground that the wife had treated him with cruelty after solemnization of his marriage with her. He had averred in the said petition that during the stay in the matrimonial house, his wife used to get telephone calls from unknown persons and whenever he inquired, she used to quarrel with him. He also stated that the petitioner-wife used to visit her parents house very often without even intimating him and she was showing minimum respect to him and his parents. He also alleged that the petitioner-wife used to show indifferent attitude towards him and used to react with him in a violent manner, and accordingly, had prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 6. The petitioner-wife had filed objections to the said petition denying the averments made in the said petition, while admitting the relationship. 7. The Family Court clubbed both the cases and recorded common evidence in both the cases. In order to substantiate their respective cases, the petitioner-wife was examined as PW-1 and she got marked seven documents as Exs.P-1 to P-7. The respondent-husband was examined as RW-1. However, no documents were marked in support of his case. The Family Court vide the impugned judgment and decree allowed the petition filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Act, and dismissed the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband has preferred these two appeals before this Court. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent-husband submits that the petitioner is guilty of desertion. She did not allow the husband to see the child after delivery and she did not come back to the matrimonial house though the petitioner had made efforts in this regard. He submits that the petitioner-wife was behaving rudely and indifferently with the husband and she was not doing the household works and she was always watching TV in the house. He submits that the petitioner-wife was behaving rudely and indifferently with the husband and she was not doing the household works and she was always watching TV in the house. He also submits that from the year 2004 onwards, the parties are residing separately, and therefore, there is no purpose in continuing the marriage, and accordingly, he prays to allow the appeals. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya Ghosh - (2007)4 SCC 511 . 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioner-wife has submitted that there are no sufficient pleadings or evidence placed before the Family Court to establish cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. He submits that the allegations made against the petitioner-wife are not serious or grave enough to consider it as cruelty. The day today wear and tear in the family life cannot be considered as cruelty and the marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved on the material evidence available on record. He submits that the petitioner-wife was always willing to join the husband and it is the husband who was not co-operating with the wife. He submits that the couple have a son who is aged about 17 years and the wife has been taking care of the son. He also submits that merely for the reason that the parties are living separately, decree of divorce cannot be passed as the petitioner at any point of time had no intention to severe the marital tie with the respondent-husband. Under the circumstances, he prays to dismiss the appeals. 10. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and also perused the material on record. 11. The respondent-husband, in order to prove that the wife had treated him with cruelty after solemnization of his marriage with her, has examined himself as RW-1, but no documents are marked in support of his case. During the course of his deposition, he has reiterated the facts alleged in the petition. The allegations made against the petitioner are not grave and serious which can be construed as cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. During the course of his deposition, he has reiterated the facts alleged in the petition. The allegations made against the petitioner are not grave and serious which can be construed as cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. The respondent has contended that his wife was in the habit of watching TV whole day and she was not doing household work and she used to visit her parents house very often without informing him. He has further stated that she used to behave very rudely with him and his parents and she used to quarrel with him on petty issues. All these allegations made by the petitioner have not been proved by him. He has not specified any specific instances wherein the wife had misbehaved with him or ill-treated him or his parents. 12. On the other hand, the material on record would go to show that after the wife went to her parents house during Ashadamasa, he had not bothered to take back her nor had he inquired about her health conditions though she was pregnant by then. The wife has also specifically stated that even after delivery of the child, the husband and his parents had not bothered to take back the child and the mother nor had they come to see them. She also stated that the efforts made by her to join the matrimonial house had failed because the husband was not cooperating. 13. The learned Judge of the Family Court after appreciating the available pleadings and oral evidence on record, has rightly held that the respondent-husband had failed to make out a case for grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act and we are of the view that the said judgment and decree passed by the Family Court does not call for any interference. 14. In so far as the petition filed by the wife under Section 9 of the Act is concerned, she has clearly stated that after she had gone to her parents house in the month of June 2004 during Ashadamasa, her husband and his parents did not take her back. She also stated that she was pregnant by then and the husband had not taken care to inquire about her health conditions and he had also not come to the hospital after she gave birth to the male child. She also stated that she was pregnant by then and the husband had not taken care to inquire about her health conditions and he had also not come to the hospital after she gave birth to the male child. She has also stated that even thereafter, when she made efforts to join the husband, she was not taken back by him and his parents. 15. The wife had gone to her parents house in the month of June 2004 and in the month of February 2005, she had given birth to a male child. The petition under Section 9 of the Act has been filed her on 11.09.2006, whereas the petition for divorce has been filed by the husband only on 02.01.2008. Therefore, it is very clear that the wife has made all efforts to join her husband, but it was the husband who was not cooperating with her. To substantiate her case, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and has reiterated all the facts narrated by her in the petition. In her cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from her by the respondent-husband so as to disbelieve her evidence. On the basis of the material available on record, the Family Court has rightly allowed the petition filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights and we are of the considered view that the said judgment and decree does not require any interference. 16. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh's case supra would not be applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case, serious and grave allegations were made against the wife. It is trite law that judgments can be relied as precedence only if they are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case on hand, the allegations made by the petitioner against the husband with regard to cruelty are not of grave and serious nature. On the other hand, the normal wear and tear in the family life are sought to be made much of by the husband. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the judgment in Samar Gosh's case will not come to the aid of the respondent-husband's case. Accordingly, we pass the following order: Both the appeals are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Family Court in M.C. No. 1993/2006 c/w M.C. No. 30/2008 are confirmed.