S. Sujatha, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore in M.C. No. 3361/2012 dated 09.04.2013.

2. Facts in brief are:

The marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized as per the Hindu religion and rites on 11.04.2008 at Seetha Kalyana Mandira, P & T Colony, Nagawara Main Road, Bangalore. The couple have a female child from their marriage. It is alleged by the appellant that after the birth of the female child on 13.08.2009, a separate house was set-up by him at Dodakkanahalli where the appellant and respondent along with the child lived together as husband and wife. Some differences arose between the appellant and respondent. Due to the strained relationship, police complaints were lodged by the respondent against the husband/appellant alleging harassment. It is contended by the appellant that on 03.06.2012, both husband and wife decided to enter into an agreement of separation and separation agreement was executed on 29.08.2012 wherein it is mentioned that a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) and Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) be paid by the appellant to the respondent towards the maintenance of the respondent and the child respectively. The appellant filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) before the Family Court for a decree of divorce, dissolving his marriage with the respondent solemnized on 11.04.2008.

3. Though respondent was served, she remained absent in the proceedings before the Family Court. After appreciating the evidence placed on record by the appellant, the petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed. This Judgment and order of the Family Court dated 09.04.2013 dismissing the petition filed by the appellant for a decree of divorce is challenged in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would strenuously contend that the Family Court failed to appreciate the documents placed before it. The appellant had placed substantial evidence to prove that he physically and mentally suffered in the hands of the respondent and had undergone sufferings even at the hands of the police as the respondent is in the habit of filing false complaints. The conduct of the respondent in dragging the appellant to the police station and making him sit in the police station for the entire day, has brought down his dignity in the eye of the neighbourers and in the society as well.

It is further contended that filing false complaints in criminal case against the husband is suffice to prove the act of cruelty which is not properly considered by the Family Court.

Learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court failed to consider Ex. P. 7 - the deed of settlement entered into between the appellant and the respondent wherein the parties have agreed for separation and the respondent has agreed to receive the alimony for Rs. 3,50,000/- from the appellant. This Ex. P. 7 demonstrates the humiliation suffered by the appellant and the conduct of the respondent in harassing the appellant. This crucial evidence was not considered in right perspective by the Family Court.

It is also contended that the appellant has established the desertion of the respondent under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act. The Family Court out rightly rejected the contentions raised by the appellant, albeit the same is not refuted by the respondent.

5. Learned counsel in support of his contentions relies on the following Judgments:

(1) Praveen Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta, AIR 2002 SC 2582 (1)

(2) Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli, AIR 2006 SC 1675 (1)

(3) N.B. Rukmini vs. P.M. Srinivasa, AIR 1984 Kar. 131

6. Though the respondent is served, she has remained absent.

7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the material on record, we noticed that the appellant was married to the respondent on 11.04.2008 as per the Hindu R