K.K. Usha, J.

This reference arises under S.17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Wife was the petitioner before the District Court, Kottayam in O.P. (Div) No. 229/96. She claimed divorce under S.10 of the Act on the ground of cruelty. It was contended by her that she was being physically assaulted by her husband/ respondent and she was not even given proper food or clothing, even though notice was received by the respondent, he remained ex.parte.

2. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and she spoke in terms of the petition. PW2, her paternal uncle deposed as to how on one occasion when he visited her house, he found marks of assaults on her body and he took her to Ayurvedic doctor. The doctor was examined as PW.3 and he proved Ext. A2 certificate. He has given evidence that he found edema on the shoulder and cheek of the petitioner. The reason given by the petitioner was assault by her husband. PWs 4 and 5 are neighbours who also supported that the petitioner was given treatment for injuries sustained. The witnesses of the petitioner were not cross examined and the respondent did not adduce any evidence. In the light of the decision of this Court In Mary Sonia Zacharia v. U