Honble KOKJE, J. – This is an appeal against a ex-parte decree of divorce passed against the appellant-wife. The respondent had filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. It was alleged by the respondent husband that the marriage between the parties had been performed 25 years prior to the making of the application in the year 1992 and four daughters and a son were born out of the marriage. At the time of the filing of the application in the year 1992 two daughters were already married and two daughters and a son were living with the wife. It was alleged that the wife was subjecting the husband to mental cruelty by leaving the matrimonial home without reason many a time and threatening to commit suicide. It was also alleged that because of the cruel treatment meeted out to the husband he had to leave the matrimonial home and go away to live along. It is also alleged that earlier, an application for divorce was made, but the parties reconciled and after five years of that re-conciliation the wife started again behaving in the same manner. The appellant wife had refuted the allegations by filing a reply and had alleged that actually husband had deserted her and he is living immoral life and is trying to get a divorce to facilitate second marriage. (2). The husband had examined himself and one more witness to prove the charges. The learned Distt. Judge had proceeded ex- parte against the appellant and decided the case ex-parte. (3). The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Distt. Judge erred in proceeding ex-parte against the appellant when she had been diligently attending to the proceedings. It was pointed out from the proceedings of the trial Court that in the proceedings dated 7.7.94 the statement that the appellant was absent from 27.1.94 is factually incorrect as on 27.1.94 clearly the presence of the counsel for the appellant has been marked. It was also submitted that on that date though the counsel for the appellant wife was present, in the statement it has been recorded that he was absent. The case was then posted for 17.3.94 on which date the presiding officer was not available due to his transfer. It was also submitted that on that date though the counsel for the appellant wife was present, in the statement it has been recorded that he was absent. The case was then posted for 17.3.94 on which date the presiding officer was not available due to his transfer. On 28.4.94 again presence of the counsel for both sides was marked and the case was adjourned because the counsel for the petitioner-husband prayed for adjournment . It was thus pointed out that it was not just and proper for the learned distt. Judge to have proceeded ex-parte against the appellant wife. It was also submitted that even the ex-parte evidence put on record is not sufficient for upholding a decree of divorce as the evidence is not sufficient to prove any of the grounds taken under Section 13 of the Act by the respondent husband. (4). I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. A part from the fact that the learned Distt. Judge proceeded ex- parte against the wife under a mistaken impression that she had been absenting herself from the proceedings for a long time, I have also found that the passing of the decree of divorce on merit itself cannot be supported: Even on the basis of ex-parte evidence, Firstly the pleadings are vague and general. In the application under Section 13, the husband has not given any details to the cruelty alleged to have been practiced against him. In Paragraph 4 of the application in which the husband has set out the grounds on which the divorce was sought no details as to the date, time and the number of times the wife had left the matrimonial home and had given threats of committing suicide have been given. The entire statement is vague and general and no specific allegations with reference to dates of the incidents on the basis of which plea of cruelty was being taken, have been given. The details were absolutely necessary as the husband has pleaded that he had filed earlier an application for decree of divorce in the year 1982 which he withdrew on the wife tendering apology. This would mean that the earlier incidents of cruelty and desertion were condoned. The details were absolutely necessary as the husband has pleaded that he had filed earlier an application for decree of divorce in the year 1982 which he withdrew on the wife tendering apology. This would mean that the earlier incidents of cruelty and desertion were condoned. It would, therefore, be necessary for the husband to clearly plead with reference to dates the incidents which took place after this condonation, otherwise a confusion as to the incidents which have been condoned and the incidents which have taken place after the earlier case was withdrawn would remain. On such pleadings no triable issue could be raised. Moreover, in the ex-parte evidence which has been lead before the Court also no specific date of any incident on the basis of which desertion and cruelty could be inferred, have been given. Only general statements about the mis-behaviour of the wife have been made. (5). It is firmly established rule that the ground for relief in a matrimonial cause should be strictly proved. The standard of proof in case of tall proceedings under the Act is that the Court must be satisfied on a preponderance of probability that the ground for relief is proved and normally the Court requires that the evidence of a spouse who charges the other spouse with a matrimonial offence should be corroborated. While the analogies and precedents of criminal law should have no authority in matrimonial causes the Court that the allegations made are well founded. The background of the case and surrounding circumstances may often furnish some corroborative evidence. In the present case the circumstances and the specific incidents which may go to corroborate the testimony of the husband have not been set out. The witness Bhanwarlal examined by the husband does not speak of any specific incidents. A decree of divorce cannot be based on such vague and general pleadings and proof. (6). In the result this appeal is allowed. The Judgment and decree passed by the learned Distt. Judge is set aside. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.