JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - This is a defendant's Second Appeal in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties were married on 29th January, 1961. They had three children. According to the plaintiff's case, the defendant left for her parent's house some eight months before the suit, which was instituted on the 13th July, 1972. The plaintiff went to call her, but the defendant avoided to return and finally refused to do so. According to the plaintiff, the cause of the estrangement between the parties was that he had three children from his first wife and the defendant did not want to bring them up or to live with them. The plaintiff also alleged that he made efforts to settle the matter through respectable persons, but to no result, hence the suit. 2. The defendant admitted the marriage, but her main plea in defence was that the plaintiff had divorced her on 30th September, 1969 in the presence of a number of named persons and turned the defendant out of his house and since the defendant wanted to move the City Magistrate for a maintenance order, the plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to this Second Appeal. She further pleaded that a Nazharnana was also executed in the presence of respectable people of the community and of the Mohalla on the 2nd November, 1971. The issue, on which the parties went to trial, was whether the marriage between them was dissolved by divorce as alleged by the defendant. The defendant appeared as D.W.2. Her statement was recorded on 1st December, 1972. She stated on oath that she was married with the plaintiff about thirteen years ago and the plaintiff had, a little more than three years ago, divorced her at his house. He said before all the people of the house and children etc., "divorce you. divorce you". He said so, many times before every body. The witness then said, he said so, ten or twelve times and that at that time her father and maternal uncle were present, and that the plaintiff had also said to her "Khuda Rasool ki gaaam tujhe talaq di", and had said that three times. The witness added that the plaintiff took out his things and told her father to take her away and that some of her things had been taken out even before the pronouncement of the divorce. The witness added that the plaintiff took out his things and told her father to take her away and that some of her things had been taken out even before the pronouncement of the divorce. Her father then arranged for the carriage of the goods and she remained there for sometime until the goods were taken away. Then she left with her three children to her father's house and she had been at her father's place for a little more than three years. In cross-examination, she said that at that time two of the children were with the plaintiff and the one aged about three years five months was with her. Cross-examined about her statement relating to the divorce, she said that the divorce was given inside a room of the house. She was present, her husband was present, and the two maternal uncles were standing on the door, After other questions she was again asked about the divorce. She said that on the day, on which divorce was given, the quarrel started when he asked for the papers of the house as he said that he wanted to sell it and the quarrel continued for about half an hour and her maternal uncle and father had come after chat marpit, some ten mimtes after it. The two young boys had gone to call her father and maternal uncle. She had asked then to call her brother. The answer to the last question put to her in the cross-examination was that it was wrong to say that she was not divorced or that she was telling a lie. 3. The defendant's father Haji Ahmad Hussain, who gave his age as seventy two years and his occapation as a school teacher, appeared as D.W.3. He supported and corroborated the defendant's case that she had been divorced by the plaintiff a little over three years ago and that since the divorce, the defendant, his daughter has been living with him and the plaintiff's allegation that she was living with him for the last one year and a quarter only was wrong. He supported and corroborated the defendant's case that she had been divorced by the plaintiff a little over three years ago and that since the divorce, the defendant, his daughter has been living with him and the plaintiff's allegation that she was living with him for the last one year and a quarter only was wrong. Cross-examined about the giving of divorce, he said that on receiving information that the two were quarrelling and the plaintiff had divorced the defendant, he along with Bashir Ahmed reached the spot when the plaintiff said that he would not keep her and that the witness should take her away and thereupon he brought her along with the three children and her goods. The plaintiff had said inside the house as well as outside the house that he had divorced the defendant and that the witness should take her away and when he came outside, some twenty five to thirty persons collected. In reply to another question in cross-examination, the witness is supposed to have stated that the first quarrel took place about two-and-a-half years before the date of his statement end that the last quarrel took place some three years ago. At about the and of his cross-examination, the witness stated that it was wrong to say that the defendant was not living with him for the last three to three-and-a-half years. 4. The next witness produced by the defendant was Mohammed Umar (D.W.4) who gave his age as seventy years and was the maternal uncle of the defendant. He also corroborated and supported the defendant's statement that she had been divorced by the plaintiff about three years ago. He said that the defendant was present, her father was present and he and his younger brother were present. He stated that the plaintiff has, in his presence, said to the defendant "tujhe talaq di, tujhe talaq di, tujhe talaq di", and that after the divorce the defendant went to her father's place and has been living there ever since. He further stated that there was a Panchayat about a month thereafter, in which a large number of persons were present including the plaintiff's sister's son, sister's husband Wali Mohammed and the sister's son Rasheed Ahmad, who had signed on the Panchayatnarna. The Panchayatnama was made one month after the divorce and the divorce was given inside the house. He further stated that there was a Panchayat about a month thereafter, in which a large number of persons were present including the plaintiff's sister's son, sister's husband Wali Mohammed and the sister's son Rasheed Ahmad, who had signed on the Panchayatnarna. The Panchayatnama was made one month after the divorce and the divorce was given inside the house. A large number of persons were present outside. Cross-examined, the witness said that the Panchayat had been called by Chaudhary Nabi Hussain, but he did not know on whose asking the Panchayat was called. He said that he went there with his brother and brother-in-law. He did not ask any one the object of calling the Panchayat because he already knew it. The object of calling the Panchayat was to find out the way of settlement between the parties. However, the witness stated, on being further cross-examined on the point, that the plaintiff had already given all the clothes and ornaments of the defendant and the question of dower was not raised at the Panchayat. According to the witness, Chaudhary Sahib wanted a reconciliation between the husband and the wife. The witness did not speak in the Panchayat. The defendant was also not present at the Panchayat. Her father, brother, he, her maternal uncle, and his brother and other persons were present. His brother also did not speak in the panchayat. The defendant's brother also did not speak. The whole talking (sic) was done by Chaudhary Sahib. And no demands were placed from the defendant's side nor did any one speak from the plaintiff's side. Only Chaudhard Sahib continued to speak. A paper was written by Altaf Hussain. That paper was also written by Chaudhary Sahib at that very time. When it was written, Chaudhary Sahib asked the people to sign it. The plaintiff had left even while the paper was being written. The witness stayed for about one hour after he had left, and other people had also signed it. The plaintiff quietly slipped away and did not give any reason for not signing. On the day when divorce was given, the witness said that he went from his house on being called by a boy, namely, Liyaqat aged about fifteen or sixteen years and that he had been called by his brother-in-law, namely, the defendant's father whose house was about a furlong and a half away. On the day when divorce was given, the witness said that he went from his house on being called by a boy, namely, Liyaqat aged about fifteen or sixteen years and that he had been called by his brother-in-law, namely, the defendant's father whose house was about a furlong and a half away. The witness went along with his younger brother Bashir Ahmad which took about fifteen or twenty minutes. When the witness asked the defendant's father about it he told him that the plaintiff had divorced the defendant and that they have to go there, where upon, he, the witness, his younger brother and the defendant's father went to the plaintiff's house. When they reached there, goods had not been placed outside. The process of carrying the goods took about an hour after they had reached there. Some of the goods were carried by them, some by rickshaws and after the goods had been carried they left with the defendant and her children for their house. The witness stated that when he reached the plaintiff's house, the defendant was sitting outside the room and the plaintiff was standing on the door step. The witness said that they had to carry the goods because there was no one to help them. He said that he did not talk to any one. When asked whether there was any documentary evidence of the fact that the defendant was living with her father for the last three years, the witness stated that it might be with them and also said that he had heard that the defendant's ration card was separate. He then stated that they lived in the same house and ate together. Lastly, he stated that it was wrong to say that the defendant left her husband's place about a year and a half ago and that he had given the statement on account of relationship. 5. The next witness was Saeed Ahmad (D.W.5). He stated that the plaintiff had divorced the defendant some three years ago. That day he had stopped at the plaintiff's house seeing a crowd collected there. When he reached there, the divorce had already been given and that at that time Nasitullah, Nawab Jan Khan and Chaudhary Nabi Hussain etc., were present, who were coming out of the house. He stated that the plaintiff had divorced the defendant some three years ago. That day he had stopped at the plaintiff's house seeing a crowd collected there. When he reached there, the divorce had already been given and that at that time Nasitullah, Nawab Jan Khan and Chaudhary Nabi Hussain etc., were present, who were coming out of the house. They were asking the plaintiff as to what he had done, on which he said that he had divorced the defendant, on which the people collected there had told him to give her things. She then left with her things. The witness also stated that a panchayat was held at the place of Chaudhari Nabi Hussain about a month thereafter at which some twenty or thirty persons were present. A panclrayatnama was written by Munshi Altaf Hussain in his presence. The witness identified the handwriting and his signature, and the signatures of some other persons and added that the plaintiff had run away and did not sign and that it was signed by Wali Mohammed, brother-in-law of the plaintiff, and by Rasheed, the nephew of the plaintiff. He then stated that he had received the paper from Sri S.N. Abdul Majid who is an Advocate of the Allahabad High Court who had given it to him because he was the Secretary. Haji Abdul\Vahid, President of the All Indain Jamaitul Mansur, had given it to his son from whom he had got it and the paper was thereupon marked Ext. Ka-2. Cross-examined, the witness said that Jamaitul Jlanaur was a registered body although he had no proof of its registration when he was elected its district General Secretary in 1962, of which too he had no documentary evidence. The further cross-examination of the witness was directed about the working of the said Society and its election etc. About the divorce, he said that on that day he had gone to purchase vegetables from Mohalla Maqbara. The cross-examination of the witness is long and winding. No useful purpose will be served by repeating it. 6. Chaudhari Nabi Hussain appeared as D.W. 6. About the divorce, he said that on that day he had gone to purchase vegetables from Mohalla Maqbara. The cross-examination of the witness is long and winding. No useful purpose will be served by repeating it. 6. Chaudhari Nabi Hussain appeared as D.W. 6. He stated that about three years ago, when he saw some people collected at the plaintiff's house, he stopped there and called the plaintiff and asked him what the matter was, on which he told him that he was coming out of his house having given divorce to his wife inside the house, and then he saw the defendant's father and maternal uncle coming out of the house with the defendant and going away with their things on the rickshaw. After that the defendant had never come to the plaintiff's house and was living at her father's house. The witness then stated that there was a panchayat about a month later at his house at which Ext. A-2 was written which was signed by Wali Mohammad and Abdul Rashid who were the brother-in-law and nephew respectively of the plaintiff. The witness verified his own signatures thereon. The cross-examination of the witness was directed about the panchayat and it is again not necessary to reproduce it. 7. Ahsan Mohammad Azam (D.W. 7) was the next witness. He is defendant's brother. He proved certain applications which he made to the Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police etc., on 30th July, 1971. 8. The plaintiff examined himself alone on 15th May, 1973 after the close of the defence evidence. He stated that he did not divorce the defendant and did not turn her out of the house and that no panchayat ever took place about it. He never said before the witness produced by the defendant that he had divorced her. The witness said that the defendant was not staying at his house for the last one-and-a-half year. He said that the defendant had left of her own accord against his wishes ; that she used to be at her step children and told them to get out of the house ; and refused to come back when he asked her to do so. The witness said that the applications moved by the defendant's brother were false and no action was taken there on to his knowledge. About Ext. The witness said that the applications moved by the defendant's brother were false and no action was taken there on to his knowledge. About Ext. A-2, the witness stated that it was not written in his presence nor it was read out to him and no such panchayat took place. About the divorce, the witness stated under cross-examination that it was wrong to say that he had divorced the defendant three and-a half years ago. He said that his sister's son was named Rashid, but his signatures were nor made on Ext. A-2 in his presence and it was wrong to say that Rashid participated in the panchaytat from his side. Then he said that his sister's husband was named Wali Mohammad, but he did not recognise his signature nor did he sign in his presence and to his knowledge no document of the kind of Ext. A-2 was written and it was wrong to say that there was any panchayat and some respectable person from his side participated there in or that he left the panchayat. He said that Chaudhary Nabi Hussain and Munshi Saeed Ahmad were not important persons of his community. He did not know to which party Nabi Hussain belonged, nor did he know that he was the Chaudhary of the community. He then said that Abdul Rahim was the Chaudhary of his Biradri and after his death his son was the Chaudhary. He had riot brought any witness. He did nor remember in which month or on what date the defendant left him. It was wrong to say that he had given her divorce three-and-a-half years ago. He had made repeated attempts to call the defendant, but did not remember the dates or the months of having done so. He had even made attempts in 1973, but then said that he made no attempt in 1973 and so the cross-examination went on ; and again asked about the divorce, the witness said that it was wrong to say that he had divorced the defendant. Apart from other things which it is not necessary to recount here, the witness stated that he did not send any money for the period of Iddat nor in the name of the children. It was wrong to say that three years ago he had got the name of his wife deleted from the ration card. Apart from other things which it is not necessary to recount here, the witness stated that he did not send any money for the period of Iddat nor in the name of the children. It was wrong to say that three years ago he had got the name of his wife deleted from the ration card. He said that Munshi Saeed Ahmad was not the Secretary of Jamaitul Mansur nor was there any such Jamait. He said that he did not give any security for the Iddat money. Lastly, he said that the defendant had not taken away her things from his house, but had taken away only one box, but even so, the witness said, nothing belonging to her was kept in his house. 9. It is rather unusual for this Court in a Second Appeal to have read the entire evidence led by the parties, even before referring to the findings arrived at by the two courts below on the evidence. But a departure from that normal course of practice, became necessary because the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant said that a Muslim wife had, in her statement on oath taken in the name of God, stated that she had been divorced by her husband in the name of God, and there was no earthly reason why that statement should have been disbelieved, particularly when that statement was corroborated and supported by all concerned including the wife's father, the wife's maternal uncle, the wife's brother and other persons closely related to her who were all respectable persons of the community and there was no reason why they would all come and support a case of divores in such a situation if it were not true. Rule 5 of Order XXXIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it the duty of the Court to inquire into the facts alleged by the parties so far it reasonably can, in matters concerning the family. Rule 5 of Order XXXIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it the duty of the Court to inquire into the facts alleged by the parties so far it reasonably can, in matters concerning the family. Nevertheless, the law of procedure settled for our courts being what it is, I have also to examine and to see whether the finding arrived at by the trial court, on an appraisal of the evidence, could be said to be vitiated in law for, the learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondent urged that how soever grossly erroneous the finding may be, it cannot be interfered with by a Court on Second Appeal unless it is a found to be based on no evidence or perverse. 10. 1 have reproduced above the entire evidence in the case. The evidence is all one way, namely, that the plaintiff had divorced the defendant on the 30th September, 19ti9. The only evidence on the side of the plaintiff husband is his own denial. The plaintiff husband had filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Obviously, he was highly interested in the result and he was bound to deny the divorce pleaded by the wife, if he wanted to maintain the suit. The burden of proving divorce appears to have been placed entirely on the wife, her evidence was examined first. The question rather was whether her evidence proved the fact of divorce, if it did, there is nothing in the evidence of the plaintiff which could be said to have rebutted or disproved it. 11. The first direct witness of the divorce was the defendant wife herself and she stated on oath in the name of God. The statement was against her own interest, for the continuance of the marital status was to the advantage of the wife. By the divorce, her right to inherit to the husband's property is cut off. As the dower, which is normally payable by a Muslim husband on divorce, the present suit was not for dower and it was stated by the wife and all her witnesses that all her things and articles were allowed to be carried away after the divorce. By the divorce, her right to inherit to the husband's property is cut off. As the dower, which is normally payable by a Muslim husband on divorce, the present suit was not for dower and it was stated by the wife and all her witnesses that all her things and articles were allowed to be carried away after the divorce. This fact is corroborated by the husband himself when he said that nothing belonging to the wife was kept at his place, although he did also state that she had carried away only one box while going from his house. I am of the opinion that in a case like the present one, the defendant wife's father, who is a retired teacher and was an old man aged about seventy two years and a devout Muslim, being a Haji, would not normally make a false statement in a matter like this. Added to it is the fact that the defendant maternal uncle, who was also as old man aged about seventy years, and other persons of community and the Mohalla, all supported the defendant and appeared on good numbers to support and corroborate the defendant wife's case that she had been divorced by the plaintiff. There is no earthly reason why all these people would have appeared as witnesses and stated on oath that the defendant had been divorced by the plaintiff as alleged by her. Even writing (Ext. A-2) signed by several persons corroborating the fact of divorce has been produced and proved by the witnesses. It is impossible in face of this evidence for any reasonable person to say that the plaintiff had not been divorced by the defendant and in that sense the finding of the two courts below to the contrary can easily be said to be perverse. The statement of the wife, which was against her own interest, normally merited acceptance. It was corroborated by so many witnesses. Instead of accepting it, the two courts below proceeded to approach the evidence from an entirely wrong angle, and to find fault with it by picking a hole here and a hole there, which verges on pettifogging. The statement of the wife, which was against her own interest, normally merited acceptance. It was corroborated by so many witnesses. Instead of accepting it, the two courts below proceeded to approach the evidence from an entirely wrong angle, and to find fault with it by picking a hole here and a hole there, which verges on pettifogging. It is the broad effect of the evidence in the light of probabilities which has to be seen for finding out which way the truth lies, rather than to play up minor contradictions between the statements of the witnesses and proceeding on the assumption that every witness, who is related to a party must he disbelieved on that ground. In matters like this, the natural witnesses are the relations and the friends of the parties and it is their evidence which has to be examined for what it is worth in order to arrive at the truth. This is not to say that all the things spoken of by the witnesses are to be accepted as true. It may be that many of the witnesses were not present when the divorce was pronounced, but it is not possible to say that they did not reach the plaintiff husband's place shortly after the divorce had been pronounced or when the defendant was forced to leave the plaintiff's place after the divorce. At any rate, it cannot be doubted that the witnesses honestly believed that the defendant had been divorced by the plaintiff. It is a different matter that the evidence is, as a matter of practice brushes up in order to make it fit in with what people believe to be the rules of evidence and, in doing so, add so many things which may not be true, and even contradict each other on petty details; but that cannot detract from the fact that the witnesses who appeared for the defendant wife in this case, were by their character, their circumstances, their relationship, their culture and their religious faith and belief, much, as would not have come forward to state on oath that the defendant had been divorced by the plaintiff, unless it had been a fact. And according to the notice of a true Muslim, the wife having sworn in the name of God that she had been divorced by her husband in the name of God it was sufficient without any thing more to upheld her claim that she had in fact been divorced by her husband. 12. The two courts below did not examine and appraise the evidence from a proper view point. There is overwhelming evidence from the side of the wife that she had been divorced by the plaintiff, her husband. There was no good reason to disbelieve that evidence. To disbelieve it was perverse. There is no evidence from the side of the plaintiff husband to rebut or disprove the fact of divorce except for his bare denial which could hardly be treated to be evidence on which a court of justice could place any reliance and may that the plaintiff had not divorced the defendant. The finding of the two courts below is thus vitiated in law. I believe the defendant's statement and hold that she was divorced by the plaintiff on the 30th September, 1969, as alleged by her. The result is that the plaintiff's suit for restitution of conjugal rights must be dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The judgment and decree under appeal are set aside. The plaintiff's suit for restitution of conjugal rights is dismissed with costs throughout.