[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner herein is the wife, having suffered a decree for divorce. The petition has been filed by the respondent on two grounds, namely, cruelty and desertion. In sofar as the cruelty is concerned, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was having illicit relationship with the 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 petitioner. Out of suspicion the respondent searched the entire house and found the presence of the third party, without shirt. In so far as desertion is concerned, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner left the matrimonial home on her own volition. Thereafter, did not return back despite request made by the respondent.
The petitioner denied the allegations made by the respondent. In the Counter Affidavit filed, 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.
The Court below found that the case sought to be exposed in the petition for divorce by the respondent is not proved through evidence. In so far as the cruelty is concerned, it was held that except the testimony of the respondent along with the allegations made by the petitioner, 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 petitioner back and in any case, she has not left the matrimonial home voluntarily but was intended to return back.
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 petitioner, which we have indicated above. Even for these allegations the Court below has rightly held that there is no iota of evidence to substantiate. Perhaps, the Court below did not want to dwell much in the allegation made by the respondent against the petitioner.
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. Thus, the Court below rightly found that they are unfounded and thus causing cruelty to the respondent. In the light of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed. After all, the relationship between the parties is constrained 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.
Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stand dismissed.
To The Family Court, Madurai..