Assessment of evidence in matrimonial cases should be based on intrinsic probabilities and the broad preponderance of probabilities, and the court may grant a decree of divorce on the ground of real cruelty and suppressed material facts.

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act challenging the order passed by the Learned Judge of the Family Court, Mangalore in M.C.No.152/2012 clubbed with M.C.No.245/2012 dated 3.8.2013.

2. The appellant-husband herein was the respondent in M.C.152/2012 filed against him by his wife for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The respondent-husband herein had filed M.C.245/2012 for restitution of conjugal rights. M.C.152/2012 has been allowed and decree of divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty and M.C.245/2012 has been dismissed for relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the husband.

3. Appellant-husband herein will be referred to as respondent and respondent-wife herein will be referred to as petitioner as per their ranking in M.C.152/2012.

4. The parties are Christians and their marriage had been solemnized as per the customs of their religion. The petitioner is a widow and respondent is a divorcee. Their marriage was solemnized on 21.10.2009 at St.Jude Shrine Pakshikere in the presence of friends and relatives and it was an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the respondent started to live in the house of the petitioner at Kottara-Mangalore till February 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that both of them lived together happily in Bejai and after sometime, the respondent started changing his attitude towards her. The respondent used to come home fully drunk at odd hours and used to abuse the petitioner in filthy words and at times, he used to assault her is the allegation. The petitioner's further case is that respondent started extracting money from her by causing bodily injury and as a result of which, she suffered mental agony. The petitioner is stated to have tolerated all his behaviors hoping that he would mend himself. He is stated have deserted her on 4.2.2010 and has been residing in his house.

5. The respondent has filed detailed written statement denying all the material allegations except the marriage solemnized between them as per rituals of Roman Catholics. It is averred that he got introduced to the petitioner in October 2008 and there was sufficient time for the petitioner to understand him before the marriage. He is stated to have presented her Karimanisara weighing around 37 gms gold and costly wedding sarees at the time of the marriage. The petitioner is stated to have foisted a false case against him. It is averred by him that on 8.1.2010 he went along with the petitioner to Qatar and he returned back to India on 7.2.2010. He was residing with her from 4.2.2010 till August 2011. During this period, their marital life was normal and healthy. He is stated to to be running small Crockery and Plastic goods business in Mangalore and petitioner is the proprietor of Eva Beauty Parlour, Madina Khalifa, Qatar and she has been running the parlour for more than 14 years and is earning more than Rs.15,00,000/- per month. She is stated to be having sufficient landed properties in Mangalore and several vehicles. He is stated to have looked after her mother when she was suffering from paralytic stroke. With these pleadings, he had requested for dismissal of the petition filed by his wife and with the same pleadings he had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 10(1)(ix) to Indian Divorce Act.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues came to be framed by the Trial Court:

a) Whether the petitioner/wife proves that the respondent/husband has deserted her for at least two years immediately proceeding the presentation of the petition?

b) Whether the petitioner/wife proves that respondent/husband has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for her to live with respondent?

c) Whether the petitioner/wife is entitled for decree of divorce?

d) Whether petitioner/husband proves that the respo