[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The appellant herein is the wife, having suffered a decree for divorce. The petition in H.M.O.P.No.321 of 2007 has been filed by the respondent herein on two grounds, namely, cruelty and desertion. Insofar as the cruelty is concerned, it is the case of the respondent that the appellant was having illicit relationship with a third party. According to him, he went to the house during the late hours. The door was not opened immediately. Thereafter, it was opened by the appellant. Out of suspicion, the respondent searched the entire house and found the presence of the third party, without shirt. Insofar as desertion is concerned, it is the case of the respondent that the appellant left the matrimonial home on her own volition and thereafter, did not return back despite request made by the respondent.
2.The appellant denied the allegations made by the respondent. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the appellant, she has made serious allegations against the respondent, characterizing him as a womanizer. This includes female members of her family, co-workers of the respondent, neighbours among others. The allegation is with respect to the intimacy between the parties.
3.The Court below found that the case sought to be exposed in the petition for divorce by the respondent is not proved through evidence. Insofar as the cruelty is concerned, it was held that except the testimony of the respondent along with the allegations made by the appellant, nothing more is available. No independent witness has been examined and the alleged person with whom the petitioner was said to be living in adultery has not been arrayed as a party. For desertion, it was found that the respondent has not taken any steps to bring the appellant back and in any case, she has not left the matrimonial home voluntarily, but was intended to return back.
4.After having rejected the contentions of the respondent, the Court below proceeded to grant a decree for divorce based upon the serious allegations made in the counter affidavit filed by the appellant, which we have indicated above. Even for these allegations, the Court below has rightly held that there is no iota of evidence to substantiate the same. Perhaps, the Court below did not want to dwell much in the allegation made by the respondent against the appellant.
5.Be that as it may. A perusal of the allegations made would show that they are very serious in nature. Any statement has to be proved by evidence. Admittedly, the petitioner was unable to prove the allegations made by her. Thus, the Court below rightly found that they are unfounded and thus, causing cruelty to the respondent.
6.In the light of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. After all the relationship between the parties is strained to the extent of making very serious allegations against each other. Once it is found that the allegations are not based upon any evidence, they do constitute cruelty by taking into consideration the nature of such statements. Thus, we do not find any error to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
7.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stand dismissed. No costs.
To The Family Court, Madurai.
.