JUDGMENT S.K. Palo, J. 1. The appellant/husband has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.12.2008 pronounced by 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhind in Case No. 9/2008 (HMA), by which application filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Act, has been rejected. 2. Facts which are not disputed between the parties are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnised in May, 1996 at village Hayderpur. After their marriage, they lived together for two years. Due to their wedlock, a son is born who is living with the appellant. It is also not disputed that a daughter was also born to the respondent and died within 10 days after birth. 3. The factual matrix before the learned Trial Court was that the appellant filed a suit under Section 13 of the Act stating that the respondent after two years of their marriage started quarreling with the appellant for petty matters. She has been visiting her maternal house at village Imlapur of her own. She used to go with a person named Bimal who used to come to visit the respondent. On 10.10.2004, when the appellant had gone to Delhi for earning by doing a job as a labourer, the respondent left her matrimonial home and took away Rs. 18,000/- cash which was kept in the home. She left five years' old boy Kishan at home. On receiving this information, the appellant came to his village Aheti on 03.01.2005 and from there he went to village Hayderpur and he found that the respondent is living with Bimal at village Imlapur. Even after several requests, she did not agree to come to her matrimonial home. She abused him and threatened him of his life. Therefore, the appellant returned back. People of his society and others including the mother of the respondent tried to make her understand the things but could not convince her. The respondent gave birth to a baby girl due to her affair with Vimal. The girl was later killed by her. The respondent is living separately of her own and leading an adulterous life. 4. Per Contra, the respondent/wife has denied all the averments and claimed that she had been discharging the duty of a wife. The baby girl born, died after 10 days. The girl was later killed by her. The respondent is living separately of her own and leading an adulterous life. 4. Per Contra, the respondent/wife has denied all the averments and claimed that she had been discharging the duty of a wife. The baby girl born, died after 10 days. The appellant is serving at private factory in New Delhi. After the death of baby girl, the appellant took the respondent with him to Delhi, where she found that the appellant has affair with another lady. She opposed this relationship. Due to which she was driven out from her matrimonial house. Therefore, she was compelled to live at her parental house. She has specifically denied knowing any person named Bimal and denied that she has any relation with any one except the appellant. 5. On the basis of averments, the learned Trial Court framed issues and afforded opportunity to both the parties for adducing evidence. The learned Trial Court by passing the impugned judgment rejected the application under Section 13 of the Act, 1955. 6. On perusal of the record, it is found that the appellant/husband has claimed decree of divorce on the grounds of-(i) desertion; (ii) adultery; and, (iii) cruelty. However, the learned Trial Court has not framed any issue regarding cruelty. The learned Trial Court has also framed certain issues on the averments of the respondent/wife. The learned Trial Court, in the impugned judgment, has found the averments of both the parties not proved. 7. We have gone through the records and heard the counsel for the appellant at length. 8. We are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and expected strict prove. The respondent has also agreed that after two years of their marriage, the dispute began. But she has agreed that since last four years she has been living at his brother's house. This statement was recorded on 17.04.2008 (see order-sheet). But she agreed that in the year 2006, she gave birth to a baby girl and the baby girl died because of premature birth. That means their marriage was solemnised in the year 1996. Till 1998, they lived together happily, after 2 years their relationship became strained. According, to her admissions, she is living with her brother since last four years and she gave birth to the baby girl in the year 2006. That means their marriage was solemnised in the year 1996. Till 1998, they lived together happily, after 2 years their relationship became strained. According, to her admissions, she is living with her brother since last four years and she gave birth to the baby girl in the year 2006. According to the allegations made by the appellant, she left her matrimonial home since 2005. The neighbour of the appellant also supported this version. Heera Singh (PW-4) the father of the appellant also has stated the same. 9. The respondent alleged that during the course of trial, the appellant married to a girl named Kavita D/o Vishal Singh r/o Jitholi, district Kanpur. But she has not adduced any evidence in this regard. The respondent has claimed that the marriage of appellant with the other girl was known to her through his brother Kuldeep Singh. Kuldeep Singh examined as DW-2, has stated that the second marriage of the appellant was known to him through a person whose name he does not know. This version of the respondent has not been substantiated. 10. The learned Trial Court perhaps accepted strict proved of adultery but in matrimonial cases, the evidence has to be analyzed on the principles of "preponderance of probability." Before granting any relief on the ground of adultery the Court has to satisfy itself that the matrimonial offence complained of is established. There is always the presumption of innocence and it is for the petitioner to prove the allegations. At the other hand, the respondent bears the burden of establishing affirmative defence set up in the reply. 11. Coming to the present case, it can be safely said that admissions are the best evidence. The admission made by the respondent in her cross-examination is sufficient to establish the allegations. The logical conclusion from all points cannot be accepted with certainty. The proceeding is civil in nature and not criminal. Therefore, analogy of criminal case can at this time be misleading. In Neelam Tiwari Vs. Suneel Tiwari reported in AIR 2009 MP 225 , it is held that impleading of alleged adulterer is not mandatory, more particularly in the absence of rules framed by the Court under the Act. 12. The civil suit was filed on 15.05.2007. According to the admissions of the respondent Smt. Mamta (DW-1) she is living with her brother since last four years. The statement was recorded on 17.04.2008. 12. The civil suit was filed on 15.05.2007. According to the admissions of the respondent Smt. Mamta (DW-1) she is living with her brother since last four years. The statement was recorded on 17.04.2008. That means, three years prior to the filing of the suit she has been residing separately. As per the averments of the appellant and plaintiff witnesses she is living separately since 2005. That is more than two years prior to the filing of the suit. In matrimonial cases we have to adjudicate on the basis of the "oath versus oath" evidence. The appellant claims that the respondent has left her matrimonial house whereas the respondent claims the appellant has deserted her but keeping in view the circumstances existed in the present case, we are inclined to accept the evidence of the appellant in this regard. 13. Be that as it may, we deem it proper to allow this appeal. At the same time, we cannot loose sight of the provision of alimony. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in U. Sree Vs. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 ], has held that:- "Grant of permanent alimony to wife-Factors to be considered. No arithmetic formula, held, can be adopted therefore-However, status of parties, their respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other obligations must be taken into account-Duty of Court is to see that wife lives with dignity and comfort and not in penury-Though living need not be luxurious, Court has to act with pragmatic sensibility that wife does not meet any kind of man-made misfortune." 14. Keeping in view the economical conditions and living standards of the parties and following the principles laid down in U. Sree (supra), we deem it proper to fix a one time alimony of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) to the respondent/wife, which would be just and proper in the circumstances, which shall be deposited in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhind in the following manner:- (i) 50% of this amount has to be deposited within one month from today. (ii) 25% of the amount has to be deposited within next three months; and (iii) Rest 25% has to be deposited by the appellant/husband within next three months. (iv) The concerned Family Court is directed to see that Rs. (ii) 25% of the amount has to be deposited within next three months; and (iii) Rest 25% has to be deposited by the appellant/husband within next three months. (iv) The concerned Family Court is directed to see that Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) be kept in fixed deposit in the name of respondent/wife in any nationalized bank in such a manner that the non-applicant/wife receives the interest through her saving bank account quarterly. The rest amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) be paid to the respondent/wife by account payee cheque for her immediate needs. (v) If the appellant/husband fails to deposit the amount as mentioned above, the decree of divorce would be rendered inoperative.. 15. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 05.12.2008 is set aside. Decree of divorce in favour of the appellant is passed subject to the above conditions.