ORDER : D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. This appeal is filed questioning the order dated 28.10.2016 in O.P.No.138 of 2012. 2. This Court has heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilpakurti, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Despite opportunities, none appeared for the respondents. 3. Sri Chandra Sekhar argued the matter at length. According to him, the trial Court committed a serious error in dismissing the application filed on the ground of desertion. He points out that the evidence in the case is clear and that despite the proof of desertion, the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence and dismissed the application. He points out that the marriage between the parties was performed on 13.11.1980 and the respondent deserted the petitioner in March, 1988. Thereafter, she filed series of cases including maintenance case and a case under 498-A IPC which ended in acquittal. It is therefore contended that as there is no matrimonial relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and desertion for two years prior to the filing of the original petition is proved. As per the learned counsel, the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application. He relies upon the paper book that has been filed to argue and also a judgment in the case of Debananda Tamuli v Kakumoni Kataky, AIR Online 2022 SC 163. None appeared for the respondent despite opportunities. 4. This Court has gone through the evidence and has heard the learned counsel at length. On behalf of the petitioner, to prove his case, two witnesses were examined; the petitioner himself as P.W.1 and one P.Venkata Narayana as P.W.2. P.W.3 has filed chief affidavit, but since he did not appear, his evidence was eschewed. The petitioner’s evidence is in line with what is stated in his petition. According to the petitioner, in March, 1988 the respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner and left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. This was denied by the respondent. In the course of the evidence, it is urged that the respondent ill-treated the petitioner and that she always wanted luxurious furniture and other items. It is also stated that she wanted him to leave his employment and reside with her at her parents’ house as an illatum son-in-law. This was denied by the respondent. In the course of the evidence, it is urged that the respondent ill-treated the petitioner and that she always wanted luxurious furniture and other items. It is also stated that she wanted him to leave his employment and reside with her at her parents’ house as an illatum son-in-law. It is also stated that she left the matrimonial house at least 50 times in the 8 years that they lived together and he along with his elders used to go every time and requested her to come back. The filing of the cases etc., is admitted and it is also stated that so many mediations were made to restore the conjugal life. Lot of suggestions were put in the course of the cross-examination. It is admitted that he did not issue any legal notice before filing this petition. He also admits that he has not paid the maintenance that was ordered by the Court. He also admits that he filed HMOP for restitution of conjugal rights, but the same was dismissed for default. 5. The only other witness examined is P.W.2. He states that he is a close relative of the petitioner and attended the wedding also. The cause of the desertion is again mentioned as a demand for luxury furniture, demand for the petitioner should stay at the respondent’s house as an illatum son-in-law etc. In the cross-examination, however, he states that he does not know about their children or their ages. He further states that he only knows that the petitioner and respondent are not living together; that he does not know about the affairs of the respondent and that he has no personal knowledge about the luxurious life of the respondent. 6. What is important to note at this stage is that as per the pleadings and evidence, it is stated that the respondent was in a habit of leaving the house and in fact it is stated that she left the house at least 50 times and that the petitioner and the elders used to go every time and bring her back. None of these elders were examined as witnesses. Not one of these ‘50’ incidents is borne out by the evidence. It is therefore a case of petitioner’s evidence on oath versus the respondent’s evidence on oath. There is no corroborating material. None of these elders were examined as witnesses. Not one of these ‘50’ incidents is borne out by the evidence. It is therefore a case of petitioner’s evidence on oath versus the respondent’s evidence on oath. There is no corroborating material. The respondent on the other hand in the course of her evidence has said that she lived with him till 2011 and thereafter she left because he was ill-treating her, beating her and used to tease her in filthy language etc. In addition, she alleges that the petitioner was also having an extra marital affair. Even in the cross-examination, there is denial. There are many suggestions. It is admitted by her that she filed a criminal case for an offence under section 498-A CPC, but the same is dismissed. 7. However, what is interesting is the son and daughters of the parties have given evidence as R.Ws.2 to 4. All of them uniformly say that the father used to ill-treat the mother in several ways and that is why she was compelled to leave the house. In the cross-examination, of all these witnesses also, nothing tangible is elicited. The available evidence therefore does not clearly show that the respondent left on a particular day without just and reasonable cause. The children’s evidence in the opinion of this Court was rightly relied upon by the trial Court. 8. Coming to the case that is cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner Debananda Tamuli (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the facts are clearly distinguishable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly said that whether a case of desertion is made out or not will depend upon the facts brought on record by way of evidence. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed that the marriage was solemnized on 17.06.2009 and the parties lived together for 13 days i.e. till 30.06.2009. Even thereafter, the wife visited the town where the petitioners resided for one or two days in December, 2009 because of the serious illness of the appellant’s mother. Therefore, in para 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that she did not make any effort to resume the matrimonial relationship and that no reasonable cause is pleaded or proved for desertion. In this case, there is no clear evidence to show that the petitioner left without a reasonable cause. Therefore, in para 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that she did not make any effort to resume the matrimonial relationship and that no reasonable cause is pleaded or proved for desertion. In this case, there is no clear evidence to show that the petitioner left without a reasonable cause. The children’s evidence is a factor which is against the petitioner/appellant. He filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, but did not pursue the same. Admittedly, he did not pay the maintenance. The ill-treatment is something that was spoken of by all of the three children in almost identical terms. Therefore, it cannot be said with the available evidence that the respondent left the matrimonial house without just cause. None of the elders who interfered in the matter or who accompanied the petitioner in bringing back the respondent from her father’s house in the ‘50’ times that allegedly she left was also examined. Therefore, in the circumstances, it is to be held that the petitioner has not proved his case. 9. In the opinion of this Court, trial Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned judgment and this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the same. 10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.