THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH F.C.A.271 OF 2010 02-11-2010 BETWEEN; Ramagiri Ravichandra son of Eshwara Chandra Arya ...Appellant vs. Ramagiri Sumanjali wife of Ravichandra ...Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH F.C.A.271 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) This appeal by the husband directed against the order dated 29-06 2010 of the Additional Family Court, Hyderabad rejecting O.P.No.524 o 2010 filed by the appellant under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriag Act, 1965 seeking for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent. Admittedly, the parties were married on 18-05-2003. The appellan had contended before the Family Court that three (3) days afte the marriage, he called the respondent to join his company, which sh declined asserting that she would continue to stay with her parents. Hi parents are of old age and his mother suffering with age related problem and needs the assistance of the respondent, which was not forthcoming o account of obstinacy in refusing to join the appellant’s company. Th appellant also claimed to have issued a legal notice directing th respondent to join his company and since there was no reply he file O.P.No.113 of 2004 for restitution of conjugal rights and in the said petitio the respondent set out several allegations against him and his parent including as to a demand for dowry which he never made. As there was desertion by the respondent without just cause, the appellant sough dissolution of the marriage. The respondent in a counter-affidavit before the Family Court denie the allegations and contended that at the time of marriage th petitioner/appellant herein was a student. The appellant had agreed t permit the respondent to continue her studies since he was working in private firm in Ramanthapur. The petitioner used to take her to his home o every Saturday and dropped her at her College every Monday. Since May 2004 however he has not visited the house of the respondent and ther was not even a telephonic response. The respondent also asserted tha she contested the O.P 113 of 2004 and expressed her willingness to joi the petitioner/appellant. The appellant failed to pursue O.P.No.113 o 2004. The respondent also contended that the petitioner and his parent demanded Rs.4 lakhs as dowry of which amount her parents paid Rs. lakhs and agreed to pay the balance amount later. For this reason, th appellant deserted her and on contrary is stating that she had deserte him. The court below on a cogent consideration of the evidence on recor came to the conclusion and rightly that there was no evidence what-so ever to establish the appellant’s claim that the respondent had deserte him and no case for grant of dissolution of marriage was made out. Excep the self-serving testimony of appellant as PW.1, the testimony of PWS.2 t 4 did not corroborate the appellant’s case, held the lower court. The famil court analysed the testimony of the petitioner and found that he ha admitted in cross examination to be visiting the respondent durin weekends and that in OP 113 of 2004 the respondent herein ha expressed her willingness to join her husband, the petitioner. He als admitted to have withdrawn OP No.113 of 2004. We find no reasons to interfere with the order of the Family Cour Hyderabad in O.P.No.524 of 2007 declining to grant the relief o dissolution of marriage to the appellant. The appreciation of evidence an application of the appropriate legal principles is impeccable and warrant no appellate interference. There are no merits at the stage of admission. The Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 2nd NOVEMBER 2010. TSNR