Antony Dominic, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Family Court, Alappuzha in OP (HMA).No.274/09. That OP was filed by the respondent herein, under sections 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the 'Act', for short), seeking divorce. Before the Family Court, on behalf of the respondent, he himself and two other witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and Exhibits A1 and A2 were marked. On behalf of the appellant, she herself and another witness were examined as RWs.1 and 2 and Exhibits B1 to B7 were marked. The Family Court, by judgment dated 10.2.2012, disposed of the matter, accepting the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) and rejecting the ground of insanity under clause 13(1)(iii) of the Act. It is aggrieved by this judgment, the appellant wife has filed this appeal.

2. The parties are Hindus and their marriage was solemnized on 7.5.1998 at Sree Bhagavathi Temple, Mankompu. Thereafter, they lived as husband and wife at the native place of the husband and later, at Bangalore and their son, Harikrishnan, was born on 28.4.1999. According to the respondent, the appellant was suffering from mental insanity and was also behaving in a cruel manner. Therefore, he filed OP(HMA). 417/08 before the Family Court, Alappuzha on 28.4.2008. That OP was withdrawn on 31.5.2008. Thereafter also, the couple lived together at Bangalore and they again separated on 29.12.2008. Since then, they are living separately and the son with the respondent. It is in these circumstances, the OP was filed by the respondent before the Family Court on 7.3.2009.

3. As already stated above, the ground upheld by the Family Court for granting the decree of divorce is cruelty. Arguing on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel contended that the petition did not contain any pleading for establishing the ground of cruelty. According to him, the averments in the petition are in relation to the situation prior to 31.5.2008 and that on account of the withdrawal of OP(HMA).417/08 and resumption of cohabitation, the cruelty, if any, stood condoned. Counsel contended that in the absence of any pleading of any cruelty for the period subsequent to the restoration of marital relationship, the Family Court ought not to have accepted the case of cruelty and granted divorce.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the conduct of the appellant subsequent to 31.5.12008 was the continuation of her conduct prior thereto and according to the counsel, there are sufficient pleadings substantiating his case. He also contended that the appellant has made reckless and unproved allegations in her pleadings and evidence and that therefore, at any rate, she is guilty of causing mental cruelty to the respondent which itself entitled the respondent for a decree of divorce.

5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides.

6. Section 20 of the Act providing for the contents and verification of petitions reads thus:

"20.Contents and verification of petitions-

(1) Every petition presented under this Act shall state as distinctly as the nature of the case permits the facts on which the claim to relief is founded, and except in a petition under Section 11, shall also state that there is no collusion between the petitioner and the other party to the marriage.

(2) The statements contained in every petition under this Act shall be verified by the petitioner or some other competent person in the manner required by law for the verification of plaints, and may, at the hearing, be referred to as evidence."

7. In exercise of the powers conferred under sections 14 and 21 of the Act and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Kerala framed the Hindu Marriage (Kerala) Rules, 1963. Rule 7 thereof provides for the contents of petitions and rule 7(3), which being relevant, reads thus:

"7. Contents of petition.- In addition to the particulars required to be given under order VII, Rule (1) of the Cod