above said fact is not correct. Since, the marriage was solemnized in the year 1999. Further, he stated that when he was in hospital in the year 2004, the respondent did not attend. But, the medical records shows that the consent was obtained from the respondent. Therefore, the trial Court has dismissed the petition. The First Appellate Court in its order, discussed that in the hospital records, the name of the respondent was mentioned. But, however, due to compulsion only, she attended the hospital. The First Appellate Court relied upon Ex.P.4, the complaint given by the petitioner and also relied upon the counter filed by the respondent, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has proved the ground of cruelty as well as the desertion and also relied the evidence of the respondent that she obtained a government job on the ground of divorcee before granting divorce to her. Therefore, it shows that the respondent was not ready to live with the petitioner and thereby, granted divorce. The trial Court has not discussed about the above said aspects. However, since this is second appeal, the same is lie only as against the substantial question of law. In this case, all the grounds raised by the appellant are factual aspects and there is no substantial question of law involved. Therefore, the second appeal has no merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.
