1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 404 OF 2008 Santosh Ramchandra Gore........Appellant versus Sou. Aruna Santosh Gore......... Respondent. Mr. S.M. Railkar for the Appellant CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 29th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Railkar the counsel appearing for the appellant. The appellant is the original Plaintiff and the respondent is the original defendant. Marriage Petition No.25/2000 was filed by the appellant for divorce against the respondent, on the ground of desertion and mental cruelty. Trial court decreed the suit on both the grounds and dissolved the Marriage between the appellant and respondent. In an appeal filed by the respondent, the lower appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court. The appeal court in para 12 of the judgment has observed that the respondent is staying at Warawade in house no.457. It is not disputed that this house belongs to the appellant's father. The appellant claims that he is 2 staying at Watad-Khandala. However, finding is recorded that Watad-Khandala is the part and parcel of village Warawade and distance between the same is hardly ½ km. In view of these finding the appeal court held that ground of desertion is not proved. 2. So far as the ground of mental cruelty is concerned the lower appellate court in para 14 of the impugned order dealt with appellant's allegation in this regard. The case of the appellant seems to be that the respondent-wife made allegations against him that he has illicit relations with one Anita Kharad. This allegation is specifically denied by the respondent in her evidence. The lower appellate court has also observed that the appellant could not give any evidence except his deposition about the ground of mental cruelty. 3. The lower appellate court after appreciation of the evidence on record held that the appellant could not make out case for divorce either on the ground of desertion and/or cruelty. After perusal of the impugned order, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned decree. No question of law much less substantial question of law involved in this case. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is thus dismissed. ( R.V. MORE, J.)