1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the I Addl. Prl. Family Court at Mysuru (‘Family Court’ for short) in M.C. No. 365/2015.

2. Facts in brief are:

That the appellant and respondent herein are the wife and husband, respectively, their marriage having been solemnized on 28.4.1008. They have begotten a son by name Ravikumar, presently aged about 18 years. Allegations and counter allegations were made by the petitioner and respondent before the Family Court. M.C. No. 195/2003 was filed by respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act,1995 (‘Act’ for short). The appellant-wife resisted the same and ultimately, the said petition came to be dismissed, against which MFA No. 10504/2007 was filed by the respondent before this Court and the said appeal came to be dismissed by an order dated 07.02.2011. Subsequently respondent filed M.C. No. 365/2015 under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act seeking divorce from the appellant on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Respondent was examined as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P7 were got marked. Respondent was cross-examined and in the process, four documents were confronted to him and were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. A memo was filed on behalf of the appellant that she has no oral evidence to let in and she will be relying upon the admissions coming from the mouth of the respondent, as well as Exs.R1 to R4 to substantiate her defence. The trial Court, considering the material evidence on record and the arguments of both the sides, passed an order allowing the petition filed by the respondent. The said order is impugned in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel Sri. C.V. Srinivasa, appearing for the appellant would contend that the Family Court grossly erred in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant in faulting that she had not stepped into the witness box. It was argued that, when the materials placed on record from the side of the appellant was the undisputed testimony about the conduct of the respondent right from the year 1999, the Family Court should have given due weightage to this material and erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant. Inviting the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in MFA No. 10504/2007 (DD 7.2.2011) submitted that several attempts made by the appellant-wife to live together with the respondent-husband did not materialize and this aspect was noticed and observed by this Court that similar attempt was made by this Court in persuading the parties to live together, initially the husband had agreed and later he went back. The observation made by this Court in the said MFA No. 10504/2007 speaks about the conduct of the respondent, which, in fact, establishes the false allegations made by the respondent against the appellant as regards the desertion and cruelty aspects are concerned. This Court has categorically held in MFA No. 10504/2007 that except the self serving testimony, no other evidence was placed before the Court to show that the wife treated the husband with cruelty. Even so far desertion is concerned, it was held that the appellant-wife is ready to join the husband right from the beginning. The intention of the respondent-husband is only to get rid of her and accordingly, rejected the appeal as no valid ground was made out by the respondent. Despite the dismissal of the appeal, on the very same grounds the respondent filed M.C. No. 365/2015. The Family Court ought to have considered the observations made by this Court in MFA No. 10504/2007 and would have rejected the M.C. petition filed by the husband, on the very same grounds. In support of the contentions advanced, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following Judgments:

(i) Pandurang Jivaji vs. Ramchandra Gangadhar Ashtekar, AIR 1981 SC 2235.

(ii) Senguttuvan vs. Mahadevaswamy, ILR 2007 Karnataka 2709

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

5. It is not in dispute that t