JUDGMENT J.M.KHAZI,J. - This appeal filed by the husband under Sec. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the impugned judgment and decree in M.C.No.1592/2005 dtd. 22/6/2015, by which the Family Court has granted a decree of divorce under Sec. 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Family Court. 3. FACTS: Briefly stated the facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 25/10/1998, at Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Choultry, Attibele, as per the Hindu customs and rituals. Though in the beginning respondent looked after the petitioner with love and affection, later on he along with his parents started sending the petitioner fortnightly to get money for opening a Bar and Restaurant. He used to come home late in a drunken condition, quarrel and assault the petitioner. He was not satisfied with the fact that at the time of marriage, petitioner's parents gave gold jewels weighing 1 1/2 Kgs and cash of Rs.5,00,000.00 by way of dowry. He was also pestering her to get a motor cycle. During December 2000 assaulted petitioner with a knife. 3.1 It is further case of the petitioner that while she was pregnant, during January 2001, when she went to her parent's house and during check up at the Nursing Home, Doctor advised her to be admitted to the hospital as she was anemic. However, respondent forcibly took her to his residence at Bengaluru. When her health condition deteriorated she was admitted to the hospital by her parents. On 12/9/2001, respondent forced her to return to the matrimonial home. When she suffered severe chest and stomach pain, she was admitted to Vishwabharati Nursing Home. On 15/9/2001, the Doctors informed her that the child has died in the womb. Later when respondent refused to take her to the matrimonial home, without any alternative she went back to her parents house. 3.2 It is further case of the petitioner that during April 2002, on the demand of respondent, the petitioner's father gave him Rs.5,00,000.00 and during May 2002, purchased him a Pulsar motor cycle. Even when she was admitted to Narayana Hrudayalaya, the respondent did not visit her. After her discharge from the hospital, respondent again demanded Rs.5,00,000.00 to purchase a Bar and Restaurant. Even when she was admitted to Narayana Hrudayalaya, the respondent did not visit her. After her discharge from the hospital, respondent again demanded Rs.5,00,000.00 to purchase a Bar and Restaurant. During March 2003, petitioner gave birth to a son. Respondent and his family members did not even come to see the child. During naming ceremony also the relatives of the petitioners demanded money and created a scene. In April 2005, respondent demanded his father-in-law to transfer the title deeds of choultry to his name and when refused, he threatened to kill the petitioner and her family members including the child. In fact, on 21/4/2015, at the instance of respondent, 4-5 unknown persons entered the house and assaulted the petitioner and her parents, in which incident petitioner's father died. Respondent was not proceeded against for lack of evidence. On 19/5/2005, respondent and his friends attempted to kidnap the son of the petitioner. 3.3 Petitioner is subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the respondent. She was humiliated, insulted and made fun of by the respondent at the home as well as outside. The life of petitioner has become a hell. Petitioner, her mother and son are not safe at the hands of respondent. Inspite of advise by the elders and common friends, respondent has not changed his attitude and without any alternative petitioner is seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 4. Respondent has filed objections admitting the relationship between the parties and the fact that they have a son through the wedlock. However, he has denied all the allegations of demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment attributed to him. He has pleaded that the family of petitioner are very well off whereas he has a humble background. Therefore, they were reluctant to accept the alliance of petitioner. The mother of petitioner wanted to give her in marriage to her brother, but her father was against it. Therefore, petitioner's father persuaded the respondent to marry her. Since the petitioner was only child of her parents, her father wanted the respondent to be their son. 4.1 Respondent has alleged that since petitioner's mother was not happy with the alliance, she was not in good terms with the respondent. She was egoistic towards respondent and his family members. Petitioner used to visit her parents house once in fortnight during which period her mother slowly poisoned her mind. 4.1 Respondent has alleged that since petitioner's mother was not happy with the alliance, she was not in good terms with the respondent. She was egoistic towards respondent and his family members. Petitioner used to visit her parents house once in fortnight during which period her mother slowly poisoned her mind. During her pregnancy in the fifth month, petitioner went to her parent's house, but she went on postponing her return to the matrimonial home. In the ninth month of pregnancy at the request of petitioner's father, the respondent brought the petitioner to his house at Bengaluru as there were no good hospitals at Attibele. However, the child died in the womb, as petitioner's parents were not able to provide her with proper medical attention during her pregnancy. When she was admitted to Vishwabharati Nursing Home, it was revealed that the child had died. 4.2 After the delivery, as desired by her respondent sent the petitioner to her parent's house to take rest. At her request he also set up a separate residence. Though petitioner joined him for sometime, while he went to Shabari Malai temple, petitioner went to her parent's house. After his return from Shabarimalai petitioner went on postponing her return to the matrimonial home. After petitioner became pregnant, respondent visited her and requested to return to the matrimonial home. However, she went on postponing the same. Since in the meanwhile, petitioner's father suffered heart attack and he was hospitalised, respondent did not insist upon petitioner's return to the matrimonial home. Ultimately, she gave birth to a son on 25/3/2003. Even after the naming ceremony held on 3/3/2004, petitioner did not return to the matrimonial home. Unfortunately, on 21/4/2005, petitioner and her parents were attacked by dacoits and her father died due to the incident. Even after his death, the respondent requested the petitioner to return to the matrimonial home, but she refused. She went to the extent of alleging that he tried to kidnap the child. The Police did not proceed against the respondent for lack of evidence. It is pleaded that the petitioner is seeking divorce at the instigation of her mother and uncle Roopachandra and has sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the other hand, respondent has filed G & W C.No.140/2005 seeking custody of his son. 6. Based on the pleadings the Family Court framed the necessary issues. 7. It is pleaded that the petitioner is seeking divorce at the instigation of her mother and uncle Roopachandra and has sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. On the other hand, respondent has filed G & W C.No.140/2005 seeking custody of his son. 6. Based on the pleadings the Family Court framed the necessary issues. 7. M.C.No.1592/2005 and G and W.C.No.140/2005 clubbed together and common enquiry is held. 8. During the enquiry, petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 39. 9. On behalf of respondent, RWs-1 to 5 are examined, including the respondent. Ex.R1 to 9 were marked on his behalf. 10. Vide the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court allowed the petition filed by the petitioner granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and rejected the petition filed by the respondent for custody of their son. 11. Though initially MFA 217/2016 and MFA 216/2016 were clubbed together and proceeded with, it was submitted across the bar that the child in respect of whom the G & WC was filed, has attained majority and therefore MFA 216/2016 be disposed of as having become infructuous and accordingly, it be de-linked from this appeal. 12. During the course of arguments the learned counsel representing the respondent submitted that the pleading documents and evidence clearly shows that till the death of petitioner's father there was cordiality between the petitioner and respondent and this fact is not properly appreciated by the Family Court. Since the petitioner and respondent are related to each other prior to their marriage, there was no question of any demand of dowry or harassment. Based on minor instances, the Family Court has held that the allegation of cruelty is proved and granted decree of divorce. Only after the death of her father, petitioner was mislead by her mother and maternal uncle and this fact is not properly appreciated by the Family Court. viewed from any angle the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable and sought for dismissal of the same and prays to set aside the same. 13. Only after the death of her father, petitioner was mislead by her mother and maternal uncle and this fact is not properly appreciated by the Family Court. viewed from any angle the impugned judgment and decree is not sustainable and sought for dismissal of the same and prays to set aside the same. 13. On the other hand the learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that after the death of only brother of the petitioner, her father with the fond hope that respondent in his capacity as the son-in-law would fill the place of his son, got married the petitioner with the respondent by spending huge amount and inspite of giving dowry in the form of 1/2 Kgs of gold and Rs.5,00,000.00 in cash, respondent was not satisfied. After the marriage he started harassing and ill treating the petitioner and in spite of meeting his demand, money and other valuable articles, he was not satisfied. On account of the ill treatment, petitioner lost her first child during her 9th month of pregnancy. Even after the birth of the second child i.e., son, respondent did not mend his behavior and ultimately on his instigation, the petitioner and her parents were attacked in which, the father of the petitioner died. Ultimately, being not able to bear the harassment any more, petitioner has sought a decree of divorce. Based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Family Court has accepted the contention of the petitioner and allowed her petition for divorce and at the same time rejected the petition filed by the respondent for custody of their son. It is also submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Family Court and accordingly dismissal of the appeal was sought for. 14. We have heard elaborate arguments on both sides and have perused the record. 15. It is not in dispute that petitioner is from a wealthy family. The fact that her brother died before her marriage with the respondent is also not disputed. Consequently petitioner is the only heir of her parents. In fact in the objections statement itself, respondent has conceded the fact that petitioner is from an affluent family, where as he is from a middle class family and as such he was reluctant to marry the petitioner. Consequently petitioner is the only heir of her parents. In fact in the objections statement itself, respondent has conceded the fact that petitioner is from an affluent family, where as he is from a middle class family and as such he was reluctant to marry the petitioner. During the course of her evidence, petitioner in unequivocal terms has deposed that in spite of performing the marriage in a grand manner by paying dowry of Rs.5,00,000.00 and also giving ornaments weighing around one and a half Kg, respondent was not satisfied and every fortnight he used to send the petitioner to her parents house demanding money and in fact her father used to meet his demand in order to see that his daughter is happy in the matrimonial home. For the aforesaid purpose, petitioner's father has paid around 10 to 15 lakhs to the respondent. The evidence placed on record also prove the fact that throughout her pregnancy, respondent did not take any responsibility of taking petitioner to his house and meeting her medical expenses and on the other hand when she was in full terms, on 12/9/2001 he has gone to the house of maternal home of the petitioner and demanded her to accompany him. Since, he was honking the horn continuously and creating an ugly atmosphere, the petitioner accompanied him immediately in her night gown itself. The evidence placed on record also prove the fact that the petitioner took her to a hotel which is at a distance of about 100 ft from her house and they stayed the night in the hotel and on the next day he has taken her to the matrimonial house. As a result of the aforesaid mental harassment, she suffered with high blood pressure and chest pain and nausea and with great reluctance she was taken to the Vishwabharathi Nursing Home at Hanumanthanagar. However by that time the child had already died in the womb. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly establish that the petitioner has lost her child after a full term pregnancy of nine months. 16. The evidence placed on record by the petitioner further establish the fact that even after she lost the child, the respondent did not chose to stay with her and on the other hand he demanded a Pulsar motor cycle and cash. 16. The evidence placed on record by the petitioner further establish the fact that even after she lost the child, the respondent did not chose to stay with her and on the other hand he demanded a Pulsar motor cycle and cash. After his demand was met, he went to the matrimonial home of the petitioner once in fortnight and after sometime demanded that his ancestral home at Shivajinagar be demolished and in its place, a shopping complex be constructed. When the said demand was not met, he did not care to meet the petitioner even after coming to know that she was pregnant with the second child. Even after she gave birth to a son, respondent and his family members have not bothered to see the child. Even when the Doctors insisted that the signature of the husband is necessary for the surgery, he has not come forward to sign the papers. The evidence placed on record also prove the fact that when the naming ceremony was conducted, respondent and his family members have gone to the choultry and have created a scene. After the birth of the second child, when petitioner's father left her in the matrimonial home along with child, respondent and his family members have not taken care of them. Upon looking at the attitude of the respondent and his family members, the petitioner's father took her back to his house. 17. It is also contended that while the petitioner and her parents were in the house, they were attacked by dacoits and in the said incident, her father sustained serious injuries and died while undergoing treatment. The petitioner gravely suspected the involvement of respondent. Respondent has made allegations that petitioner's mother was not inclined to marry her off to the respondent and on the other hand she wanted her to be given in marriage to her brother Roopachandra and after the death of the father of the petitioner, at the instance of her mother and her uncle, petitioner is not inclined to live with the respondent and has filed a false petition. However, respondent has failed to establish the said fact by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 18. However, respondent has failed to establish the said fact by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 18. On the other hand the evidence on record which has been adduced by the petitioner establish the fact that even during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner, she was harassed and ill treated by the respondent and this harassment did not stop even after his death. The case as made out by respondent through the evidence of RWs-2 to 5 is inconsistent with evidence. The evidence of RW-2 to 5 are with regard to those aspects with reference to which there are no pleadings in the written statement. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is coming from an affluent family and after tragic death of her brother and father, she is the only legal heir to the estate of her father, the interest of respondent appears to have been directed towards enjoying the property of his father-in-law. Based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Family Court by a well reasoned judgment has rightly rejected the contention of the respondent and on the other hand has accepted the case of the petitioner and granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. We do not find any justification to interfere with impugned judgment and decree and accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal filed by the respondent is dismissed. (ii) In the circumstances, the costs are made easy. (iii) The registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record along with copy of this judgment.