JUDGMENT : (Sujana Kalasikam, J.) 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant who is the petitioner in O.P. No.821 of 2001 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad. The appellant filed the above O.P., for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The appellant is the husband and the respondent is wife. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court. Therefore, he filed the present appeal. 2. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in O.P. No.821 of 2001. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad for dissolution of marriage stating that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 10.02.1989 at Koheda village as per the Hindu rites and caste customs. After the marriage, they lived together happily for one year at H.No. 16-8-523/2, New Malakpet, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the respondent started quarreling with her mother-in-law and petitioner; that she was not cooperating in the household works and at the insistence of the parents of the respondent, they were forced to set up separate family at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad in the year 1985 and they were blessed with three children namely, Sravanthi, aged 11 years, Vijayasri, aged 9 years and Mounika, aged 7 years. The petitioner further stated in his petition that he purchased 50 Sq yards of plot at Premnagar, Amberpet in the name of respondent and he sold away the same and purchased another plot of 110 Sq yards with two rooms at Gunti Jangaiah Nagar Colony, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 4. It is also stated that petitioner made further constructions in the said plot by raising loan and the house is fetching Rs. 2000/- per month as rent. In one portion, the respondent is living and started neglecting the petitioner and his children. It is further stated that the respondent never attended to household works and everyday she was leaving the house to work in a biscuit factory on daily wage basis inspite of the objection raised by the petitioner. The petitioner used to look after the household works and after sending children to school, he used to go to the office. It is further stated that the respondent never attended to household works and everyday she was leaving the house to work in a biscuit factory on daily wage basis inspite of the objection raised by the petitioner. The petitioner used to look after the household works and after sending children to school, he used to go to the office. The respondent used to spend rental amount and her daily wages lavishly and used to come home late night and she is also in the habit of abusing and quarreling with the petitioner and also used to beat the children. The matter was informed to the parents and brothers of the respondent, a panchayat was conducted and elders warned the respondent to behave properly. Inspite of that the respondent did not change her attitude. 5. The respondent used to bring unconcerned persons to the house and insult the petitioner in front of those persons. The respondent used to become violent and also beat the petitioner. Sometimes, she used to close the doors and sleep whenever petitioner was late to home after visiting his parents at Malakpet. 6. It was further stated in the petition that on 15.09.1999 with the help of goondas, the respondent necked out the petitioner from his house and warned him with serious consequences if he tried to come home stating that the house belongs to her and she did not want to live with him. When the same was informed to the parents and brothers of the respondent, they conducted panchayat and again the elders warned the respondent and asked her to live with the petitioner. The parents of the respondent promised for an amicable settlement and took the respondent to their village. One week thereafter, she returned back and when petitioner wanted to join her company, she did not allow him into the house. In the said circumstances, the petitioner got issued legal notice on 08.10.2001. Though the respondent received the notice, did not give any reply. As such, he filed the petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty, and desertion. 7. On the other hand, the respondent filed her counter stating that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the marriage took place at Koheda Village, Ranga Reddy District and both the parties are residing within the jurisdiction of the Ranga Reddy District. 7. On the other hand, the respondent filed her counter stating that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the marriage took place at Koheda Village, Ranga Reddy District and both the parties are residing within the jurisdiction of the Ranga Reddy District. Further, it is stated that both the petitioner and respondent lived happily without any differences till 1995. Due to increase of members in the family as the accommodation at her in-laws house was not sufficient, after a period of seven or eight years, petitioner himself shifted to a rented house at Chanchalguda and after a couple of months, they have shifted to L.B. Nagar. The property situated at Amberpet and the property at Gunti Jangaiah Nagar Colony, were purchased by the parents of the respondent with their own funds in the name of the respondent, as she being the only daughter to them and her parents have constructed the house with their hard earned money. 8. It is also stated that since the year 1998, the respondent used to go to work in Biscuit factory with the consent of the petitioner. No wife would leave the house, if the husband is providing necessities for the household. It is the petitioner who neglected to see the welfare of the respondent and also refused to give money for meeting the day to day expenses of the house. In those circumstances, the respondent was compelled to work for the welfare of children to meet the minimum requirements of the house and with a malafide intention to get rid of her from his matrimonial life, had concocted cock and bull stories and filed the petition making all false and baseless allegations against her. Though the attitude of the petitioner was unbearable, the respondent with a fond hope that one day he would change his attitude, tolerated and lead the marital life. It is further stated that the petitioner used to call sorcerers to their house at L.B. Nagar to perform rituals to create fear in the mind of the respondent and to harass her. 9. After filing the petition, the petitioner never served Court notice on the respondent and got ex parte decree and judgment behind her back and rushed to contact second marriage which itself is sufficient to show who had behaved with cruelty. 9. After filing the petition, the petitioner never served Court notice on the respondent and got ex parte decree and judgment behind her back and rushed to contact second marriage which itself is sufficient to show who had behaved with cruelty. Though they resided at Koheda Village, suppressing the material facts by putting the respondent in dark, concocted second marriage and thereby the petitioner cheated the respondent. When they lived together at Koheda village till December 2003, the question of respondent deserting the petitioner from 1999 onwards would not arise at all and the respondent never received any legal notice much less notice dated 08.10.2001. It is the petitioner who played fraud before this Court by taking undue advantage of innocence and illiteracy of the respondent and in the interest of children, without prejudice to her rights, the respondent is ready to lead a happy marital life with the petitioner. Therefore, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 10. To prove the case, the petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and he also got examined Pws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. The respondent herself got examined as Rw.1 and also examined Rw.2 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.8. 11. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary dismissed the petition. 12. The contention of the petitioner is that the trial Court passed orders without giving weightage to the evidence and not appreciated the case properly. The trial Court ignored several important aspects and the contentions raised by the petitioner and grossly erred in dismissing O.P. No.821 of 2001. 13. It is further contended that the trial Court swayed away by the unreliable and contradictory statements made by the respondent and decided the matter in a casual manner deviating from the cardinal principles. The trial Court ignored several important aspects and the contentions raised by the petitioner and grossly erred in dismissing O.P. No.821 of 2001. 13. It is further contended that the trial Court swayed away by the unreliable and contradictory statements made by the respondent and decided the matter in a casual manner deviating from the cardinal principles. The trial Court failed to take into consideration the important aspect of the case that the decree in O.P. No.821 of 2001 was granted in favour of the petitioner and only after the expiry of limitation period, petitioner got contacted the second marriage which fact was very much within the knowledge of the respondent, whereas, the trial Court apparently failed to look into the facts and material on record and dismissed the O.P. He further submitted that the unwanted assumption and presumption wrongly concluded that at the time of ex parte decree passed by the trial Court, the petitioner and respondent were residing together at Koheda Village and petitioner got ex parte decree by playing fraud though the respondent failed to prove the said contention. The trial Court failed to consider the aspect that when the petitioner asked the respondent to join his company along with the children, the respondent reluctantly refused to join his company. But the trial Court ignored the same and also failed to observe that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent has irretrievably broken and there is no chance and possibility of reunion of the parties. Therefore, he prayed the Court to allow this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court in O.P. No.821 of 2001. 14. Heard Sri Pingali Rameshwar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court without going into the merits and with assumption and presumption dismissed the petition. Though the respondent is not interested to live with the petitioner without observing the said fact and without going into the merits of the case, and without examining the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 dismissed the petition. The trial Court also failed to observe that the property was purchased by the petitioner. 16. Though the respondent is not interested to live with the petitioner without observing the said fact and without going into the merits of the case, and without examining the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 dismissed the petition. The trial Court also failed to observe that the property was purchased by the petitioner. 16. Further, petitioner filed I.A. No.1 of 2023 praying the Court to receive the document to show that the property in L.B. Nagar was purchased by him. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are no merits in the appeal and the trial Court after discussing the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the petition. He further submits that the document which is filed at this stage cannot be taken into consideration though that document is very much available with the petitioner, has not filed the same in the trial Court. Therefore, the said document cannot be taken into consideration and prayed the Court to dismiss this appeal. 18. Now, the points for determination are : 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage dated 10.02.1989 as prayed for? 2. Whether the judgment of trial Court needs any interference? POINT Nos. 1 & 2 19. Having gone through the rival contentions, the appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P. No.821 of 2001 and he filed the O.P., for dissolution of marriage. To prove the cruelty of his wife, he examined himself as Pw.1 and his contention is that his wife is not cooperating in household works and she insisted for separate residence, on account of which he was forced to set up separate residence and he used to give entire salary to his wife since 1998 and against his wish, his wife Rw.1 worked in a Biscuit factory. To prove his version, Pw.1 also examined Pw.2- Somu Ramulu. According to him, the couple lived happily till they were blessed with two daughters and subsequently the disputes arose and one year of the construction of house at L.B. Nagar, again disputes arose between Pw.1 and Rw.1 and he does not know why those disputes started. In cross-examination he stated that he does not know the reason for disputes between the parties. 20. Pw.3 is one G.Ramesh. According to him, for the last six years the couple is living separately. In cross-examination he stated that he does not know the reason for disputes between the parties. 20. Pw.3 is one G.Ramesh. According to him, for the last six years the couple is living separately. Himself and Pw.2 were present when a panchayat was conducted and in that panchayat, Pw.1 informed that Rw.1 was forcing him to permit her to go to work in Biscuit factory and after construction of house at L.B. Nagar, the respondent started collecting rents on account of which the differences between Pw.1 and Rw.1 further developed. Pw.1 left the house and came back to Malakpet and started living with his parents and Rw.1 along with her children went to Koheda village. 21. The evidence of the respondent is that on 23.12.2003, when she visited her in-laws house along with her mother and elder brother she came to know that the petitioner filed petition and obtained divorce. According to her, till 2003, there were cordial relationship between her father and mother-in-law who are brother and sister. She further stated that up to 12.12.2003 they resided in Koheda village and to that effect the Surpanch of Koheda village has also issued a certificate. In support of her evidence, she also got examined Rw.2 one K. Yadhi Reddy who is a native of Koheda village. According to him, both resided in Koheda village till December, 2003. 22. Though the petitioner contended that after one year of the marriage, the respondent-wife insisted for separate residence, the evidence shows that till 1995 they have resided in Malakpet. The house in the Malakpet is consisting of 45 Sq yards. As the parties were blessed with three children, and the house is not sufficient for accommodation, they have set up a separate residence at Chanchalguda and subsequently shifted to L.B. Nagar. The further evidence of Pw.1 also shows that till 2000, he was working in ONGC as a temporary employee and by that time, he was having three children. As the salary was not sufficient, the respondent- wife started working in a Biscuit factory to meet the expenditure of the children. Except the allegation that the respondent-wife inspite of his objection worked in the Biscuit factory, there is no other allegation made by the petitioner-husband to prove the cruelty. 23. The petitioner after obtaining ex parte decree contacted the second marriage which shows the attitude of the petitioner. Except the allegation that the respondent-wife inspite of his objection worked in the Biscuit factory, there is no other allegation made by the petitioner-husband to prove the cruelty. 23. The petitioner after obtaining ex parte decree contacted the second marriage which shows the attitude of the petitioner. The contention of the wife is that no notice is served on her and without issuing any notice, she was set ex parte. In the set aside petition filed by the wife in I.A. No.106 of 2004, the trial Court observed that the husband obtained ex parte decree without the knowledge of Rw.1, as such, the said decree was set aside. 24. The evidence on record and the allegations made by Pw.1 are not proving the cruelty of respondent-wife. Further, the wife is ready to join his company. The evidence of Pws.2 and 3 is not at all helpful to the petitioner to prove the cruelty and further the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 is not corroborating with each other. The only allegation against the respondent-wife is that she worked in a Biscuit factory without the consent of her husband. 25. On going through the evidence on record, it is seen that the petitioner was a temporary employee and at that point of time, two children are going to school and the respondent felt necessary to work to give education to her children. Therefore, working in a Biscuit factory without the consent of the husband cannot be treated as cruelty. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove the cruelty of the respondent. 26. It is also apt to note that the appellant herein had issued Ex.P.1 legal notice demanding respondent to come and join his company. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said notice, respondent did not join his company. If respondent failed to join his company despite receiving Ex.P.1 notice, he has to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal right. Instead, he filed the present O.P., seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion contending that the respondent refused to live with him and thus she neglected and deserted him. Petitioner herein failed to prove both desertion and cruelty by producing cogent and sufficient evidence. Marriage cannot be dissolved on mere pleading. Party alleging cruelty and desertion, has to prove by producing sure and safe evidence. Petitioner herein failed to prove both desertion and cruelty by producing cogent and sufficient evidence. Marriage cannot be dissolved on mere pleading. Party alleging cruelty and desertion, has to prove by producing sure and safe evidence. In the present case, the petitioner herein failed to prove the same. Considering the said aspects, Court below rightly dismissed the said O.P., filed by the petitioner and there is no error in it. 27. Further the petitioner/appellant filed petition to receive the document to prove that he purchased the property in the name of his wife at L.B. Nagar. On the other hand, the respondent - wife contention is that property was purchased by her parents in her name to help her financially as she is the only daughter of her parents. On going through the said document there are no averments to prove that the petitioner paid the amount for such purchase when the wife is claiming that the property was purchased by her parents, as she is the only daughter, petitioner has to file documents to prove that consideration was paid by him. Further, it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to receive the document that though petitioner gave the said document, it was not filed in the trial Court. In cross- examination, when there is a specific question about purchase of the property and the alleged document, the question of the petitioner unaware of filing of this document does not arise. The O.P., was filed in the year 2001 and the same was disposed of in the year 2006. For almost five years, the petitioner has not filed the said document and without assigning any reasons, now he filed this petition vide I.A. No.1 of 2023. He failed to prove that in spite of his efforts, document was not brought on record. Hence, I.A. No.1 of 2023 is dismissed. Accordingly, point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered. 28. In view of the above discussion, the Family Court Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Appeal shall stand closed.