This appeal is filed by the wife being aggrieved by

the

judgment

and

decree

dated

16.11.2012

in

M.C.No.1096/2008 on the file of the I Addl. Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, wherein the Family Court

allowed

the

petition

and

the

marriage

of

the

petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife has been

dissolved.

2.

The appellant is the respondent and the

respondent is the petitioner in the Trial Court.

3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties would

be referred henceforth as per their rankings before the

Trial Court.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE:

4.

It is the case of the petitioner/husband that

the petitioner married the respondent/wife on 28.01.1995

at Bengaluru as per Christian rites and customs. A son

was born out of the said wedlock. The petitioner filed a

petition before the Family Court seeking divorce on the

ground of cruelty alleging that the respondent was ill-

- 3 -

treating the petitioner and suspecting his character and

also used to pick up quarrel even for petty reasons etc.

Hence, the petition.

5.

The

respondent/wife

appeared

by

filing

objections and denied the allegations made against her.

The respondent submits that, the Trial Court has not

appreciated the evidence properly and granted the relief of

dissolution of marriage which is liable to be set 3 aside.

The respondent further submits that, the petitioner has not

made out grounds for cruelty. The respondent further

submits that, the Hon9ble Supreme Court time and again

has reiterated that ordinary wear and tear in the family

need not be construed as cruelty.

6.

In order to substantiate their allegations, the

petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and also got

examined PW.2 and marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10

and the respondent examined herself as RW.1 and also got

examined RW.2 and got marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R61.

7.

The Trial Court after appreciating both oral and

documentary evidence granted the decree of divorce as

- 4 -

prayed for by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said

judgment and decree, the respondent has preferred this

appeal.

8.

Heard Smt.Geetha Menon, learned counsel for

the appellant and Sri.A.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for

the respondent and perused the material on record.

Submissions of Smt.Geetha Menon, learned

counsel for the appellant / wife

9.

Smt.Geetha Menon, learned counsel for the

appellant/wife submits that the petitioner/husband has not

at all co-operated to lead matrimonial life with the

respondent/wife. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate

the evidence, both oral and documentary, in proper

perspective; hence it requires to be re-appreciated.

10.

Learned counsel for the appellant further

submits that the respondent/wife has supported the

petitioner/husband

by

giving

Rs.25,000/-

to

start

computer firm, but due to mismanagement, it was

dissolved and she had to clear the loan by selling her

ornaments.

- 5 -

11.

The petitioner has started one more company

by name Taurus Computers affiliating the business with

IISC. The petitioner has developed intimacy with one

Jayashree who was working in the Department of Micro-

Biology which was at IISC. In the year 2004, the

petitioner availed loan from the Bank in the name of the

Company on furnishing the property of the respondent as

collateral security. However, the petitioner was not cordial

with the respondent and had affair with Jayashree and

tried to avail loan jointly in the name of Jayashree. The

respondent after coming to know that there is likelihood of

tampering the property, she had to withdraw the surety to

protect the property.

12.

On 13.06.2005, said Jayashree had gone to

Malaysia on her work. The petitioner visited Malaysia to

meet Jayashree under the pretext of visiting Trivendram

for the office work. It is further stated that said Jayashree

had opened Bank account in ING Vysya Bank by

mentioning the name of the petitioner as her husband.

The said documents are marked as Exhibits R58, R59 and

- 6 -

R60. Though the respondent has proved the adulte