Sreedevi, J.

This appeal is filed against the decree and judgment in H.M.O.P. No. 85 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court Ernakulam.

2, The appellant's case is this: The appellant is the petitioner before the lower Cowl His first wife passed away on 31.5.1978. He has three children in that wed-lock. Subsequently, he married the respondent on 2.2.1979. According to him, the relationship between him and the respondent got strained within a week, as the respondent did not like him showing any love and affection to his children. He, therefore, converted his residential building into a girl's hostel and his daughters were put up there. His son was admitted to a boarding school. He and the respondent shifted their residence and even after the said adjustment, the respondent did not change her attitude. According to him, the couple lived together till 15.7.1984, while the respondent would contend that she lived with him peacefully till 17th may, 1985. The appellant sued for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. She denies the allegation of cruelty. According to her, it was the husband who had treated her with cruelty. The Court below dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

3. According to the appellant, the court below went wrong in finding that there is no cruelty on the part of the respondent, that it has not correctly appreciated the evidence and documents, Exts. A7 and A9, that it failed to consider Exts. A10 to A14 and A16 and that it failed to draw the proper inference from Exts. B1 to B3 series, which showed the improper conduct on the part of the respondent.

4. To prove cruelty on her part, the appellant relied on Exts. A1 toA17. He as PW 1 has deposed that as he had three children, he wanted to marry the respondent with the intention of looking after the children. But she wanted to get away from the children, and hence he had to put up his children in the hostel. He has also deposed that the wife used to scratch his face and pick up quarrels with him as also with the children, and thereby she had hurt his feelings. It is an admitted fact that there was an attempt on the part of the respondent to commit suicide. Ext. Al is a suicide note written by her to the Sub Inspector of Police, wherein she has written that for her death nobody in the house is responsible. Ext. A3 is a letter written by her to the appellant, wherein she had expressed her intention to dissolve the marriage. This letter also goes to show that she has no love and affection towards her husband. She has contended that the appellant developed illicit intimacy with a lady by name Komalavally, who was the matron of the ladies hostel put up by him. To prove that he had illicit intimacy with Komalavally, no evidence has been let in. At the time when the respondent was examined, she had admitted that she had filed several civil and criminal complaints against him. She had also filed complaints before the Electricity Board, where he was working. The appellant had deposed that once she made an attempt to commit suicide by dousing in kerosene oil and setting fire. She also picked up quarrels with him and attempted to commit suicide. So, she cannot be said to be a woman who has love and affection towards her" husband. All these amounts to cruelty as it causes mental agony and torture to the appellant. Filing cases one after another against the husband and children definitely amounts to cruelty.

5. On going through the evidence of the appellant and also of the witnesses, PWs. 3, 4, and 5, we find that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty. PW. 2 is the brother-in-law of the appellant. He had deposed that when the relationship between the appellant and the respondent got strained, he along with the appellant's brother-Balakrishnan Nair intervened in the matter but the parties could not settle their differences. PW 4 was examined to prove that the respondent had attempted to commit suicide. He has deposed that when he was returning after the film