JUDGMENT :

M.G.Priyadarsini, J.

The appellant herein is the husband and the respondent is his wife. He filed O.P.No.11 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad under Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) against the respondent – wife seeking divorce on the grounds of ‘cruelty’ and ‘desertion’.

2. Vide the impugned order and decree dated 24.06.2014, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed by the husband.

3. The parties will be referred to as per their array in the original petition for the sake of convenience.

4. Petition averments: The case of the appellant/petitioner – husband is that he married the respondent on 09.05.2001 at Nagareshwar Temple, Humnabad Town, Bidar District, Karnataka State, and that they lived together till 10.01.2008

(i) That the respondent is sadist in nature apart from being adamant. The respondent used to harass the petitioner and behave cruelly saying that she is highly educated than the petitioner and earning more than the petitioner.

(ii) That the respondent used to frequently visit her mother’s house at Humnabad. As they do not have children, respondent blamed the petitioner as impotent.

(iii) That the respondent left the company of the petitioner on 10.01.2008 and started living separately.

(iv) That on 15.06.2010, the respondent got the petitioner abducted by engaging 10 members consisting of her relatives and other anti social elements and kept the petitioner in lock for two days, forced him to execute a document and then he was forcibly taken to a black magic practitioner at Hussanlly village of Humnabad Tq. And when the relatives of the petitioner came with the police constables from Zaheerabad, he was released.

(v) That thereafter the respondent filed a false criminal complaint in Cr.No.78 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 497 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(vi) That as the respondent deserted the petitioner for more than two years, having no other alternative, he filed the present petition seeking for dissolution of their marriage.

5. Counter averments: In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent she had admitted the marriage, but however denied that she has treated the petitioner cruelly or harassed him. Her case is that petitioner is a law graduate and practicing as an Advocate, and that she is also equally qualified with him.

(i) That she gave a complaint when the petitioner developed illegal contacts with one Padma of Gudiwada and brought the said lady to Ranjole village in the year 2008. The said Padma is already having two children and the petitioner is in total control of the said lady.

(ii) That the petitioner started ill-treating the respondent after the said Padma came in his life. The petitioner himself is not allowing the respondent to enter into the house and that she never deserted the petitioner, and she is living in a house near to the house of the petitioner.

(iii) With these averments, the respondent sought to dismiss the petition and stated that she has love and affection for the petitioner and wants to continue with the said marriage and does not wish to dissolve the marriage.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent dated 09.05.2001 on the ground of cruelty by the respondent and she deserted the petitioner?

2. To what relief?

7. In support of the case of the petitioner, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-3.

8. On behalf of the respondent she got examined herself as R.W.1, and also got examined one Penta Reddy, as R.W.2. No documents were marked on behalf of the respondent.

9. The trial court considering the respective pleadings and the evidence on record, held that the petitioner – husband failed to establish the grounds of cruelty and desertion for dissolving his mar