C.K. Abdul Rehim, J

1. Husband in a matrimonial dispute is in appeal against decree of dissolution of marriage ordered under Section 10 (1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. The respondent wife filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage, inter alia pleading cruelty from the side of the husband. The court below found that sufficient evidence has been adduced to substantiate the ground of cruelty.

2. The judgment is assailed mainly on the ground that there is total lack of pleadings with respect to the allegation of cruelty. It is contended that the court below went highly erred in relying on averments contained in the proof affidavit of the respondent, which contained versions which are not pleaded in the petition for divorce. Hence, the findings rendered based on evidence adduced in the form of proof affidavit, need be eschewed, is the contention.

3. Heard counsel on both sides. We perused the petition filed before the court below. Paragraph (7) and (8) of the petition read as follows:

"(7) The petitioner is very much fond of children and she expressed her desire to become a mother. But the respondent was totally against this and the petitioner was constrained to take precautions from conceiving."

"(8) The respondent is having a peculiar character and he used to pick up quarrels for silly and trivial things. He often tried to commit suicide. Once such an attempt was made by him and he was rescued by the petitioner and her sisters."

The court below found that, with respect to pleadings of cruelty alleged in paragraph 8 of the petition, there is total denial from the side of the appellant husband. Therefore it is the duty of the wife to substantiate the same. She had sworn into an affidavit that, when the respondent was working abroad he was compelling his relatives for permitting him to come back, threatening that otherwise he will commit suicide. Further it is brought out in evidence that he had returned by giving up the employment abroad. It is specifically noticed by the court below that, there was no cross-examination on those aspects. Therefore, accepting the version put forth by the respondent, court below found that there exist sufficient reasons to order dissolution of marriage on the ground contemplated under Section 10(1)(x).

4. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is only a vague allegation of an attempt to commit suicide. No specific date or instance is mentioned. Lack of pleadings and evidence on any specific instances will go deep into the veracity of the allegations, is the contention. Further, it is contended that such vague allegations, without pointing out any specific instances, is insufficient to arrive at any conclusion regarding the factum of cruelty.

5. On a re-appraisal of the evidence on record, we notice that averments in the proof affidavit is perfectly in tune with the pleadings contained in paragraph 8 of the petition. The court below also appreciated other circumstances and situations to hold that mental cruelty was inflicted upon the respondent. Even if a strict evaluation is made based on the pleadings alone, we cannot hold that there is any insufficiency of pleadings to substantiate the act of cruelty on the part of the appellant.

6. Another crucial aspect worth noticing is about pleadings contained in paragraph 7 of the petition. There is a categoric averment that the wife was very much fond of children and she expressed her desire to become a mother. But the appellant had not co-operated and he was totally against the above wish. It is also added that the respondent was constrained to take precautions from conceiving.

7. Sri.K.Jayakumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent, pointed out that, despite the specific pleadings as mentioned above, the court below took a totally erroneous opinion in holding that, those allegations even if proved cannot be considered as a ground of cruelty in order to attract Section 10(1)(x). According to him, any restrainme