High Court can reappreciate the evidence if the same has been misread by the Lower Appellate Court.

This Second appeal is by the wife who was the respondent in H.M.O.P. No.4 of 1988, on the file. of Sub Court, Nagapattinam.

2. The husband, the respondent herein, filed the above application for divorce on the ground that the appellant is leading an adulterous life.

3. The marriage between the parties took place on 2-9-1960, and out of the wedlock, three children were born, a son and two daughters. Both the daughters are married and the son is also self-employed. It is at that time, the respondent (husband) has filed the petition for divorce, alleging adultery on the part of his wife.

4. The material averments regarding adultery as stated in the application are as follows:

"The petitioner was having acquaintance with one Vairakkannu, a teacher working in a school at Kariakattu Street, Tiruvarur. He used to visit the sweet stall and look after the business of the petitioner as a friend. In course of time, he gained confidence with the petitioner. The petitioner possessed of Nanja lands, in Pulivalam Village, near Tiruvarur, and they were cultivated in Pannai. The said Vairakkannu was some time sent by the petitioner to look after the cultivation. During that time, he used to get to the house of the petitioner and take the materials from the house for cultivation, and return it back in the evening. In such way he got acquaintance also with the respondent. In course of time, the above said Vairakarinu frequently visited the house of the petitioner without the knowledge of the petitioner and had his stay in the house. The petitioner came to know. of it through the neighbours. Particularly in the middle of the year 1980 when the petitioner went to the house from the shop, in the evening, he found to his surprise that the above said Vairakannu was inside the house talking closely with the respondent. When he was questioned, he went out of the house. He was asked by the petitioner not to come to the shop and also not to do anything for the family of the petitioner. The respondent was also warned. Then he stopped coming to the shop, but he was frequently visiting the respondent in the house, during the absence of the petitioner. In spite of warning the respondent and Vairakannu were having illicit intimacy with each other. The respondent did not prevent the above said Vairakannu from visiting her" *

The petition for divorce was filed on 4-1-1988. The acts of adultery are alleged to have taken place during the year 1980, i.e., about a lapse of nearly eight years before the filing of the petition for divorce. The reason mentioned is that the two daughters had to be married and the younger daughter got married only by the end of 1987, and till then, the husband thought that, to maintain the

"status and prestige of the family, he should not move the petition for divorce.

5. To prove the acts of adultery, the husband examined himself as P.W.1. His close relations were examined as P.Ws. 2 to 6. The wife examined herself as D.W. 1.

6. The trial court which had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses and appreciating their demeanour, held that the allegation by the husband is a cock and bull story, and that the witnesses examined on the side of the husband can never be believed. It also found that the explanation for the long delay in filing the petition for divorce is not proper, and accordingly the trial Court dismissed the petition.

7. When the matter was taken in appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed the same. The lower appellate Court presumed that what all the husband has stated must be true, and under that presumption, held that grounds have been made out for granting a divorce. It is against the conflicting findings, the wife has come to this Court to get her grievances redressed.

8. At the time of admitting the Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed: -

" *

Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated by its failure to consider the entire evidence on record and apply the correct principle