P.D. Rajan, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment in OP No. 32 of 2006 of the Family Court, Kasargode which was filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by the husband against his wife. Appellant is the wife and respondent is the husband in this appeal. The case of respondent in the Family Court was that he married the appellant on 12/05/1994 as per hindu customary rites. After the marriage, both of them resided together in the parental house for fifteen days and thereafter both of them went to their work place. At the time of marriage, he was a Police Constable at Vellarikundu Police Station and his wife was a teacher in a government school. In the year 1995 he got selection as SI of Police, there arouse the difference between them. After training he joined at Calicut for practical training, at that time the wife refused to join with him. Subsequently, he was transferred to Pandalam in the year 1995 where he worked for one year and one month, there also his wife did not join with him. In the year 1998, he was transferred to Manjeshwaram. Thereafter to Ferook in the year 2000 and there was no progress in her conduct. According to the petitioner, the wife resided with him till 27/12/1998. During the subsistence of the marriage, wife aborted the pregnancy without his consent thereby, petitioner's ambition for having a child was spoiled by his wife. She usually ill treated him mentally by abusing him over phone. She also complained to his superior officers through telephone making baseless allegations against him. The settlement talks were failed, in the circumstance, the husband approached the Family Court with the above petition.

2. The appellant filed a written objection in the Family Court and contended that after the marriage she obtained transfer and resided along with the petitioner at his work place in Malappuram and Kozhikode Districts. While they were residing together she became pregnant but the pregnancy was tubal pregnancy and she underwent a surgery with the consent of her husband. She also resided with him from 27/05/1997 to 13/05/1998 on medical grounds. He had developed an illicit relationship with one Shylaja Kurup, who is a lawyer at Pandalam, while he was working at Ferook. The lady contacted him on the impression that petitioner was a bachelor. When appellant became pregnant, the respondent took her to a Gynaecologist at Edappal on 31/03/1999 and was satisfied with himself about her health condition. While he was working at Malappuram and Kozhikode, she stayed with him at the official residence of the SI at Nallalam till May, 2000 and at Kelakam in Kannur District. The husband also threatened her several times and forced her to obtain divorce by mutual consent. There was no cruelty from her side and she is ready and willing to reside with him.

3. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in the Family Court. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW 1, PW 2 and RW 1 and documentary evidence of Ext. A1 to A5, Ext. B1 to B4 and Ext. XI. Family Court, after sifting and weighing the evidence on record, allowed the application under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the marriage was dissolved with effect from the date of decree with cost of the proceedings from the respondent. Aggrieved by that, the wife approached this Court with this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the alleged desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) was not proved in this case. Appellant resided with the respondent till May, 2000 at Nallalam. Therefore, the period of desertion for a continuous period not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition was not proved in this case and there was no pleadings about the date of desertion and mental cruelty in the petition. When there was no pleadings and evidence in a case, the respondent is not entitled for a decree as claimed in the petition. Learned counsel reli