The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a petition for divorce, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to substantiate the allegations of cruelty and desertion, and the evidence presented must be credible and satisfactory.

Vasanti A. Naik, J.

1. By this family court appeal, the appellant-husband challenges the judgment of the learned District Judge 7, Nagpur, dated 07.09.2013 dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Section 10(1)(ix) and (x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.

2. The appellant husband and the respondent wife were married at Sadar, Nagpur as per the Christian custom on 01.10.2003. The appellant was originally from Shirthadi, Mangalore, in the State of Karnataka and the respondent was a resident of Nagpur. The parties resided together for some time at Nagpur after the marriage. A son named Marshall was born from the wedlock. At the relevant time, the appellant was serving with the government in Nagpur and after his retirement on 31.08.2008, the appellant started residing at Shirthadi. According to the appellant, the respondent's behaviour was objectionable since the inception of the marriage. It is pleaded by the appellant in the petition filed by him for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion that the respondent did not show any love and affection towards him. It is pleaded that the respondent was in the habit of developing illicit relationship with strangers despite strong objection of the appellant. It is pleaded that the respondent used to frequently quarrel with the appellant and also assault him on some occasions. It is pleaded that the respondent was in the habit of going to her parental home unnecessarily without the permission of the appellant. It is pleaded that in October 2005, the respondent went to her parental home for the delivery of the child and did not return to the matrimonial home. It is pleaded that the parties were living separately for more than two years when the petition was filed in the month of April 2009 and the appellant was entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It was pleaded that the respondent would abuse the appellant in filthy language and sometimes assault the appellant with iron rod and stick. It is pleaded that when the appellant was asleep in the bedroom, the respondent used to bring the cooking gas cylinder in the bedroom with a view to injure the life of the appellant. It is pleaded that sometimes the respondent used to try to inflict serious injuries on the appellant with the knife. It is pleaded that the acts on the part of the respondent resulted in the deterioration of the health of the appellant and he suffered from heart problem. It is pleaded that the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken down and the appellant is, therefore, entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

3. The respondent filed the written statement and denied the claim of the appellant. Every adverse allegation that was made by the appellant against the respondent was denied by the respondent. It is pleaded by the respondent in the specific pleadings that the marriage between the parties was settled by the consent of the parties and at the relevant time, the appellant was working as a professor in the Hislop college. It is pleaded that the appellant was addicted to liquor and under the influence of liquor, he used to compare the respondent with his two former wives and used to abuse and insult her. It is pleaded that the appellant used to fight with the respondent on trivial issues and used to beat her in the fit of anger. It is pleaded that in the presence of public, the appellant used to insult her by saying that she cannot give birth to a child. It is pleaded that when the uncle of the respondent expired in April, 2005, the appellant quarrelled with the respondent and objected to her visit to her uncle's place. It is pleaded that the appellant used to abuse the respondent in filthy language in the presence of his students and used to say that the respondent was his daughter and not his wife. It is pleaded that the appellant sent the respondent to her parental home when she was in the seventh month of the pregnancy and never c