(Per Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.)

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, original petitioner.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 16th January 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kolhapur in Petition No.342 of 2014 preferred by the petitioner (appellant herein) for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. By the said judgment and order his petition came to be dismissed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, original petitioner. We have perused the judgment and decree dated 16th January 2014 passed by the Family Court, Kolhapur and the pleadings and evidence led in this case. It is seen that the appellant has preferred the petition for divorce under Section 13(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. There are various provisions under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting divorce. There are various clauses under which divorce can be sought and under which clause the petition is filed by the appellant is nowhere stated nor explained. The Family Court was of the opinion that, if the averments made in the petition are perused, it seems that the petitioner wants divorce on the ground of cruelty. Thereafter issues were framed namely (i) whether petitioner proves that respondent treated him with cruelty ? and (ii) what order ?.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that his petition for divorce was not only on the ground of cruelty, but also on the ground of desertion, and the ground relating to the desertion was not considered by the Family Court. He therefore submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court ought to be set aside. As stated earlier, the petition is only under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and it is nowhere stated under which clause of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act the Petition was filed. Moreover, when issues were framed, at the time of framing issues it was not pointed out on behalf of the appellant before the Trial Court that the ground of desertion was also raised and hence issues need to be framed in that respect. It is also seen that at no point of time during the trial it was pointed out to the Trial Court that the appellant is also pleading ground of desertion and hence issues need to be framed in relation to desertion. Moreover the order framing issues was not challeged before the higher forum raising the plea that it was incorrectly framed. It is in these circumstances the Family Court only considered the issue relating to cruelty while disposing of the petition.

5. As far as cruelty is concerned, it is stated in the petition that the marriage between the appellant and respondent took place on 11.6.2004 at Nandgaon District-Kolhapur as per Hindu rites and religion. Thereafter son by name Varad was born to the parties. It is the case of the appellant that after the birth of son Varad, the respondent, without any reasonable cause, started picking up quarrel with him and started harassing him. The respondent is beloved daughter and therefore used to visit her parental house frequently. After birth of Varad respondent became more arrogant and started mentally harassing him. The appellant has stated that the family members of the respondent came to the business place of the appellant and caused him mental harassment due to which it is difficult for him to carry on his business.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent though duly served remained absent and therefore his evidence on cruelty remained unchallenged as the matter was ordered to proceed exparte against the respondent. He submitted that in such case as there is no cross-examination to the appellant the case of the appellant that he was treated with cruelty by the respondent, ought to have been accepted by the Family Court. On perusal of the evidence led by the appellant, it is seen that there are only vague statements that respondent resided nicely for a short time and thereafter started picking up qua