THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 3869 of 2003 Oral Judgment: The appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2003, passed by the Family Court, Hyderabad, dismissing O.P. No. 644 of 1999, filed by him seeking divorce by dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, filed the present C.M.A. The appellant is the husband while the respondent is the wife. The appellant filed the O.P. seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The respondent contested the O.P. denying the allegations made in the O.P. The appellant examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked Exs. P1 to P4, while the respondent examined R.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. R 1 to R97. Thereafter, the Family Court, upon appreciation of the evidence placed by the parties, held that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty and that there was no desertion on the part of the respondent and that the respondent was forced to live separately because of the cruel treatment meted out by the appellant to her. Holding so, the Family Court, by the order under appeal dismissed the O.P. filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant marked Exs. P3 and P4-complaints given by him to the police against the respondent and his family members stating that they attacked him and his family members, but the Family Court, instead of looking into the same, has committed a grave error in holding that they are dated about 20 days and 4 days prior to the filing of the O.P. and that the appellant failed to say as to what happened pursuant to the said complaint. He further contended that the respondent has been living separately and away from the respondent since 1997 without any reasonable cause, and as more than 11 years have elapsed from the date of filing of the petition, the appellant is entitled to grant of divorce from the respondent by dissolution of their marriage. Hence, he submitted that the Family Court committed a grave error in dismissing the O.P. filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, and prayed that the order under appeal be set aside and the C.M.A. be allowed. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent justified the order under appeal. She submitted that the respondent after dismissal of the O.P. filed by the appellant, filed O.P. No. 600 of 2004, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and the same by order dated 17.02.2005 was allowed by the Family Court, Hyderabad. She further submitted that the respondent also filed M.C. under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, and even though the Court awarded maintenance, the appellant did not pay the maintenance, and instead he is waiting for the outcome of the present appeal. Hence, she submitted that the no interference is called for by the order under appeal, passed by the Family Court, dismissing the O.P. filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent, and more particularly when the failed to prove cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent, and also comply with the orders passed by the Court below in the restitution O.P. and Maintenance Case. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgment under appeal. The appellant has not placed any material whatsoever to show that the respondent treated him with cruelty and deserted him. He merely marked Exs. P3 and P4, which are complaints given by him to the police alleging that the respondent and his family members attacked him. The said complaints, allegedly were made by the appellant, just 21 days and 4 days prior to the filing of the O.P. The appellant though alleged that the respondent deserted him since 1997, he admitted that he has not issued any legal notice requiring the respondent to join him. Considering that, the Family Court came to the conclusion that the appellant filed the police complaints under Exs. P3 and P4, to prepare grounds for filing the O.P., for divorce against the respondent, and that no credence can be placed on the said complaints, to hold that the respondent treated the appellant with cruelty, and more so when the appellant failed to say as to what happened to the said complaints. While on the other hand, it is the case of the respondent, as is evidence from the evidence adduced by her, she went to her maternal home for the purpose of delivery, and that after delivery on 19.09.1997, the appellant neither visited to see her and the baby nor allowed her to join him. As the appellant did not allow the respondent to join his company, the respondent filed O.P. No. 600 of 2004, for restitution of conjugal rights, and even though the Family Court, Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 17.02.2005, allowed the same, yet the appellant, has not taken any steps to take the respondent to his fold. This apart, the appellant is said to be not paying any maintenance to her even though her claim for maintenance was allowed by the Court. Thus from the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant failed to prove that the respondent treated him with cruelty and that she deserted him without any reasonable cause. The appellant having failed to prove the grounds for divorce, we find no reason whatsoever, to interfere with the order under appeal passed by the Court below, refusing to dissolve the marriage of the appellant with the respondent and grant him divorce. There is no merit in the C.M.A., and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. Dated: 28th February, 2011 KSR