Mr. Rajiv Narain Raina, J. (Oral):- The evidence of the petitioner husband was closed by order of the trial judge. The closing of the evidence has not been agitated by the petitioner in any further proceedings. After closing of the evidence, an application was moved before the trial judge for producing further additional evidence of an Audio CD said to have been recorded on 29th January, 2009 in Kasauli of a conversation between the husband and wife in order to show that the wife refused physical relationship with him and therefore this was reason enough to show that the marriage has not been consumated so far to make it a ground of divorce.

2. I asked learned counsel for the petitioner if his client had pleaded this fact in the plaint since it is admitted that the recording was done by the husband himself unknown to the partner. The answer was in the negative. What is not pleaded cannot be proved in evidence. It appears to me that having led his evidence the petitioner does not seem quite satisfied with it. In any case, a husband recording conversation surreptiously of the kind placed in transcription before this Court would appear to be the handywork of a person collecti