Judgment :- Narayana Kurup, J. This is a petition for divorce filed under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Petitioner and the respondent are Jacobite and governed by the provisions of Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and the Indian Divorce Act,1869. The grounds alleged for divorce are adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. 2. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnised on 28.10.1979 in accordance with (he provisions of the Indian Christian Marriage Act at St. George Chapel, Kuttapuzha, Thiruvalla. Thereafter they lived as husband and wife. However no issue was born cut of the wedlock. The allegations in the petition arc follows: After a few weeks of the happy marital life, petitioner understood that her husband - the respondent has been in illicit intimacy with the co-respondent herein, who was kept as a mistress and practically treated as his wife. This shocking revelation had broken the petitioner and all her hopes of a happy married life were shattered. Ills also alleged in the petition that the first respondent was interested in (he co-respondent and he slatted treating the petitioner with unbearable cruelty. He always boasted about his relationship with the co-respondent, and praised her. Further, the respondent had no love and regard for the petitioner. The respondent was only interested in the petitioner's dowry and her ornaments. There are persistent demands for dowry from the petitioner. According to her, the respondent was a habitual drunkard and had almost become an addict. The inhuman and cruel behaviour of the respondent had affected the mental and physical health of the petitioner. She understood that the respondent never wanted her company and as a result, she was forced to go to her parental house on 9-6-1980 and ever since she has been residing there. 3. Further, the allegation is that the respondent was guilty of desertion of the petitioner from 9-6-1980. He behaved in such a cruel and unkind manner as to drive away the petitioner from the matrimonial home and he succeeded in his dubious scheme. After the petitioner was forced to flee from the respondent, he had never attempted to bring her back and thereby wilfully deserted the petitioner. No maintenance was also given to her and for that purpose, she filed an application. After the petitioner was forced to flee from the respondent, he had never attempted to bring her back and thereby wilfully deserted the petitioner. No maintenance was also given to her and for that purpose, she filed an application. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed O.P. No. 11 of 1982 before the District Judge, Idukki Thodupuzha), praying for nullity of marriage alleging that the petitioner was impotent and insane at the time of marriage. Petitioner contested the petition. However, ultimately the petition was dismissed because of the default of the respondent, whose sole object for filing the petition was harassing and humiliating the petitioner. 4. According to (lie petitioner, though she had known about the illicit relationship of the respondent with the co-respondent, she had no proof or evidence to substantiate this fact. Later on, the petitioner came to know that the respondent had married the correspondent and a child was born out of that relationship and the child was baptized on 31-3-1985 at Manjanikara St. Stephen's Church. It was then, that the petitioner filed this petition for divorce. 5. The respondent tiled a counter affidavit raising various contentions. According to him, the petitioner is abnormal and is suffering from mental disability. He denied the allegations of adultery, cruelty and desertion. He further contended that the petitioner was disinterested in conjugal relationship and the petition is devoid of merits and hence liable to be dismissed. , 6. The co-respondent, though served, did not appear and she remained exparte throughout the proceedings. 7. The issue raised for consideration is whether the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is liable to he dissolved on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. 8. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of the petitioner as PW-1 and PW-2, the Principal of an English Medium School in which the child horn out of the illicit relationship between the respondent and co-respondent has been studying. Exts. P1 to P6 were also marked. The respondent, though cross examined PWs 1 and 2, did not. enter the box and give evidence. Petitioner had conceded that she had no direct knowledge of the adultery. But she had attemped to prove it by circumstantial evidence. Exts. P1 and P2 are two assignment deeds respectively in the name of the respondent and the co-respondent. They are executed simultaneously in the Thiruvalla Sub-registry. enter the box and give evidence. Petitioner had conceded that she had no direct knowledge of the adultery. But she had attemped to prove it by circumstantial evidence. Exts. P1 and P2 are two assignment deeds respectively in the name of the respondent and the co-respondent. They are executed simultaneously in the Thiruvalla Sub-registry. The assignor is one and the same and the properties are adjacent. Further, one of the identifying wimesses in Ext. P2 is the respondent Therefore, the petitioner would argue that the respondent and the co-respondent had together purchased the property and this convincingly establish their intimate relationship. 9. Another item of evidence pressed into service is Ext. P3, a letter written by one Alice K. Oonuuen, belonging to Pattern, Trivandrum to the petitioner wherein it is stated that the respondent and the co-respondent were living with their children as tenants in her house on rental arrangement. Petitioner, as PW-1, has deposed that three children were born out of the relationship between the respondent and the co-respondent. However, the first child had expired. But another child namely, Ashok is' studying in Marthoma Residential School, Thiruvalla. To prove this fact, Pw-2 the Principal of this school was examined. Pw-2 has proved Ext. P4, the relevant page of the admission register maintained by him, which relates to the admission of the child Ashok. He had spoken that entries in the admission register are on the basis of the information furnished in the application form admission in the School. The name of the child is shown as 'Ashok' Kurian Alexander'. The name of the respondent is Alexander Kurian. The. house name of the respondent Kodiate House is also the same in Ext. P4. The photo copy of the admission for application was also marked as Ext. P6, Ext. P5 being the original. Significantly enough, no suggestion was put to PW-1 also. There was no denial of her evidence regarding the child except a suggestion to PW-1 that she had no direct knowledge of the relationship. The respondent tried to delay the evidence regarding the child. Significantly, no question was put regarding Exts. PI and P2. No challenge was made to the evidence that the respondent and correspondent stayed together as husband and wife with children at Pattern. Barring exceptional cases, it will be an uphill task to prove the matrimonial offence of adultery by direct evidence. Significantly, no question was put regarding Exts. PI and P2. No challenge was made to the evidence that the respondent and correspondent stayed together as husband and wife with children at Pattern. Barring exceptional cases, it will be an uphill task to prove the matrimonial offence of adultery by direct evidence. Therefore, the court has perforce to depend upon circumstantial evidence to enter into a finding of adultery. It is settled law that adultery can be proved by preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not a legal requirement (R v. Z -1988 (2) KLT page 70, Case No. 104). Identical view has been taken by this court in Somasekharan v. Thankamma (1987(2) KLT 852).The above discussed items of evidence convincingly and unerringly prove the adulterous relationship between the respondent and the co-respondent. 10. It has to be noted that the respondent did not tender evidence and controvert the evidence of the petitioner. It is also significant to note that the co-respondent has also remained ex parte. The conduct of the respondent in not mounting the box and giving evidence speaks for itself and amounts to an implied admission of the allegations made by the petitioner. 11. Regarding the allegation of cruelty, the evidence of the petitioner remains unchallenged. She lias spoken about various acts of the respondent's cruel behaviour. Petitioner has specifically stated that the respondent is a habitual drunkard. She has further deposed that there was consistent demand for dowry by this respondent. Itis held by the apex court in Sobha Rani v. Madhukur Reddy (1988(1) KLT S.N. Case No. 1) that the demand for dowry is 'cruelty' entitling the wife to get a decree for dissolution of marriage. Further, it is proved in the case that the respondent had characterised the petitioner as an insane and impotent woman. Raising such false allegations also amounts to 'cruelty' as held by this Court in Somasekharan Nair v. Thankamma (1987(2) KLT 892/The respondent had further alleged that the petitioner was not fai r and beautiful and that he wanted to get rid of her at any cost. Under the above circumstances, it became impossible for the petitioner to live with her husband and hence she was forced to go to her house. As held in Gangadharanv. Under the above circumstances, it became impossible for the petitioner to live with her husband and hence she was forced to go to her house. As held in Gangadharanv. Thankam (1988(1) KLT 352) the cruelty should be of such nature as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent and it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture, or distress to entitle the party to secure divorce. The plight of the petitioner exactly tits in the ambit of the above said decision. 12. With reference to the allegation of desertion by the petitioner, there was no dispute on the side of the respondent. The respondent compelled the petitioner to leave his as early as on 9-6-1980, in order that he may continue with his illicit relationship with the co-respondent. There was no co-habitation thereafter. Undoubtedly, the respondent never wanted a re-union. Instead, he filed a petition for divorce alleging lunacy and impotency against the petitioner. He did not maintain the petitioner. Now, more than 15 years have elapsed since the separation of the spouses. Therefore, I am satisfied that this is a case of total repudiation of marital obligation, by bringing co-habitation to an end permanently, as held in Sughunan v. Girija (1953(2) KLT S.N. No. 39, page 38). 13. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing the fact that the respondent has deserted her without any lawful excuse. 14. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it has come out in evidence titan the respondents guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. In this connection, reference may be made to the Full Bench decision in Mary Sonia Zachariah v. Union of India (1995(1) KLT 644) wherein it has been held that the wife is entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty or desertion simpliciter. Since the petitioner has succeeded in establishing adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion, the Full Bench decision stated supra need not be pressed into service in support of the petitioner's case. In the result, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. The Original Petition is allowed. There will he no order as to costs.