The grounds of appeal in this case could include the following points:

1. Erroneous Evaluation of Evidence: The appellant may argue that the trial court improperly assessed the credibility and probative value of the evidence, particularly regarding the allegations of adultery and abuse. They might contend that certain evidence, such as covert recordings or digital communications, should have been admitted or excluded differently, and that the court failed to give appropriate weight to credible evidence presented.

2. Misapplication of Legal Standards for Proof: The appellant could assert that the court applied an incorrect standard of proof for establishing adultery or misconduct, potentially requiring a higher degree of certainty than appropriate, or misinterpreted what constitutes sufficient evidence to prove such allegations.

3. Incorrect Classification of Assets: The appellant might argue that the court erred in its classification of certain properties and assets as non-matrimonial or pre-marriage assets, thereby unjustly excluding assets from the division process. They could claim that the assets in question were acquired or used during the marriage and should have been included as matrimonial assets.

4. Inadequate Consideration of Contributions: The appellant may contend that the court failed to adequately recognize or quantify their contributions, including non-monetary contributions such as social standing, influence, or support that facilitated the development of the family or the respondent’s business.

5. Unreasonable or Unfounded Findings on Fault: The appellant might argue that the court’s findings regarding mutual fault, misconduct, or the breakdown of the marriage were not supported by the evidence, or that the court improperly attributed fault to one party without sufficient basis.

6. Improper Award of Maintenance and Asset Division: The appellant could claim that the court’s decision to award a lump sum instead of ongoing maintenance, or the specific division of assets, was unjust, disproportionate, or not reflective of the contributions and circumstances of the parties.

7. Procedural Irregularities: The appellant might allege that there were procedural errors during the trial, such as improper admission or exclusion of evidence, or bias in the court’s proceedings, which affected the fairness of the judgment.

8. Inadequate Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality: The appellant could argue that the court’s order for anonymization or confidentiality was insufficient or improperly granted, potentially exposing them to undue harm or prejudice.

These grounds aim to challenge the legal reasoning, factual findings, or procedural aspects of the trial court’s decision, seeking a review or reversal of the judgment.