S. SUJATHA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru ('Family Court' for short) in M.C.No.61/2007.

2. Facts in brief are:

The appellant and respondent are husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 16.8.1998 at Kannikaprameshwari temple, Doddapet, Madhugiri Town. The appellant filed petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act for short) before the Family Court for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized on 16.8.1998. The respondent refuted the same, filing objections and examining herself as RW-1 whereas the appellant examined himself as PW-1 and one witness as PW-2 and got marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24 in support of petition averments. Appreciating the evidence on record, the Family Court dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence placed on record by the appellant to establish the factum of cruelty and desertion to which he was subjected to by the respondent. The respondent was regularly triggering altercation with the husband on trivial issues and failed to discharge the responsibilities of a dutiful wife. It was further contended that the respondent used to visit her parental house frequently. On several occasions she had taken the jewellery and money from friends and relatives without his knowledge on the promise of returning the same but failed to do the same. The respondent was threatening them of committing suicide by fixing them for committing such an act, whenever they used to request her for return of jewellery/money. The respondent had left the matrimonial house during the year 2005 without the consent of the appellant for which a legal notice was issued on 6.7.2005 calling upon her to come and join him, which did not elicit any response. The demeanour of the respondent, threatening of committing suicide making allegations against the appellant is nothing but the cruelty to which the appellant was subjected to. The desertion aspect though proved, but the same was not appreciated by the Court below in a right perspective. The respondent attempted to kill him besides threatening of herself committing suicide. There is irretrievable break down of the marital life between the parties, which cannot be repaired. Considering these aspects, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition granting the decree of divorce as prayed.

4. We have heard the Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material on record.

5. It is trite that the petition was filed by the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act seeking decree of divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized between the parties. Mere making allegations of cruelty and desertion would not be suffice to grant a decree of divorce unless the same is established in accordance with law. A feeble attempt was made by the appellant to establish the grounds urged to seek the decree of divorce but in vain. It is evident that after issuance of legal notice, the respondent joined the husband and delivered a baby on 27.6.2006. On the other hand, it is the allegation of the wife that the appellant has not taken care of her and the child and has deserted her without any valid cause. In order to establish the factum of cruelty of the wife, the appellant has examined one of his neighbor Smt. Rita Ramamurthy as PW-2, who had some vengeance against the respondent on the issue of some jewellery being taken by the respondent and not returning the same. As such, her evidence do not inspire any credence. Moreover, a neighbor cannot be in a position to state about cruelty to which the appellant was subjected to by the respondent. As aforesaid, the testimony of PW-2 would not assist the appellant.

6. It is discernable that the respondent gave birth to a male child on 4.5.2006, whereas the matrimo