Judgment : 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act challenging the order passed by the Learned Judge of the Family Court, Mangalore in M.C.No.152/2012 clubbed with M.C.No.245/2012 dated 3.8.2013. 2. The appellant-husband herein was the respondent in M.C.152/2012 filed against him by his wife for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The respondent-husband herein had filed M.C.245/2012 for restitution of conjugal rights. M.C.152/2012 has been allowed and decree of divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty and M.C.245/2012 has been dismissed for relief of restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the husband. 3. Appellant-husband herein will be referred to as respondent and respondent-wife herein will be referred to as petitioner as per their ranking in M.C.152/2012. 4. The parties are Christians and their marriage had been solemnized as per the customs of their religion. The petitioner is a widow and respondent is a divorcee. Their marriage was solemnized on 21.10.2009 at St.Jude Shrine Pakshikere in the presence of friends and relatives and it was an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the respondent started to live in the house of the petitioner at Kottara-Mangalore till February 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that both of them lived together happily in Bejai and after sometime, the respondent started changing his attitude towards her. The respondent used to come home fully drunk at odd hours and used to abuse the petitioner in filthy words and at times, he used to assault her is the allegation. The petitioner's further case is that respondent started extracting money from her by causing bodily injury and as a result of which, she suffered mental agony. The petitioner is stated to have tolerated all his behaviors hoping that he would mend himself. He is stated have deserted her on 4.2.2010 and has been residing in his house. 5. The respondent has filed detailed written statement denying all the material allegations except the marriage solemnized between them as per rituals of Roman Catholics. It is averred that he got introduced to the petitioner in October 2008 and there was sufficient time for the petitioner to understand him before the marriage. He is stated to have presented her Karimanisara weighing around 37 gms gold and costly wedding sarees at the time of the marriage. It is averred that he got introduced to the petitioner in October 2008 and there was sufficient time for the petitioner to understand him before the marriage. He is stated to have presented her Karimanisara weighing around 37 gms gold and costly wedding sarees at the time of the marriage. The petitioner is stated to have foisted a false case against him. It is averred by him that on 8.1.2010 he went along with the petitioner to Qatar and he returned back to India on 7.2.2010. He was residing with her from 4.2.2010 till August 2011. During this period, their marital life was normal and healthy. He is stated to to be running small Crockery and Plastic goods business in Mangalore and petitioner is the proprietor of Eva Beauty Parlour, Madina Khalifa, Qatar and she has been running the parlour for more than 14 years and is earning more than Rs.15,00,000/- per month. She is stated to be having sufficient landed properties in Mangalore and several vehicles. He is stated to have looked after her mother when she was suffering from paralytic stroke. With these pleadings, he had requested for dismissal of the petition filed by his wife and with the same pleadings he had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 10(1)(ix) to Indian Divorce Act. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues came to be framed by the Trial Court: a) Whether the petitioner/wife proves that the respondent/husband has deserted her for at least two years immediately proceeding the presentation of the petition? b) Whether the petitioner/wife proves that respondent/husband has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for her to live with respondent? c) Whether the petitioner/wife is entitled for decree of divorce? d) Whether petitioner/husband proves that the respondent/wife is residing separately without reasonable cause and excuse and failed to discharge her marital obligations? e) Whether petitioner/husband proves that he is entitled to get the relief for restitution of conjugal rights f) What order? 7. To prove their respective contentions, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW-1 and she has relied upon 10 documents and respondent is examined as RW-1 and he has relied upon 16 documents. 8. e) Whether petitioner/husband proves that he is entitled to get the relief for restitution of conjugal rights f) What order? 7. To prove their respective contentions, the petitioner herself has been examined as PW-1 and she has relied upon 10 documents and respondent is examined as RW-1 and he has relied upon 16 documents. 8. After noticing the evidence and hearing the arguments, learned Judge has answered issues 1, 4 and 5 in the negative, issue 2 in the affirmative and issue 3 in partly affirmative and has chosen to allow the petition filed by the wife and has granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and has dismissed the petition filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. It is this common order which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length in regard to admission. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following point arises for consideration: "Whether the Trial Court is justified in granting decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty being meted out to this appellant by respondent herein ?" 11. As on the date when the marriage between these parties was solemnized, petitioner had already two grown up children i.e., one boy and one girl. The respondent's earlier two marriages had been divorced by the time of marriage that took place with the petitioner. Documents have been produced to that effect. What is the exact reason for earlier two divorces is not explained by the appellant herein in any manner. 12. The appellant is a rich lady and she is accustomed to lead a luxurious life. What is argued before this Court is that there is oath against oath and initial burden cast upon the petitioner-wife is not effectively discharged and therefore, onus had not shifted on the other side. 13. On going through the assessment of evidence of the witnesses done by the learned Judge, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge has assessed the evidence on the touchstone of intrinsic probabilities. Evidence of PW-1 is found to be credible. Though petitioner had an opportunity to observe the respondent during one year of courtship with the respondent, she had not met him several times during this period to understand his qualities or behaviour. Evidence of PW-1 is found to be credible. Though petitioner had an opportunity to observe the respondent during one year of courtship with the respondent, she had not met him several times during this period to understand his qualities or behaviour. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent is addicted to drinking and coming home at odd hours fully drunk and he used to harass her. The learned Judge has attached much emphasis to the assertion of PW1 that respondent is more interested in extracting money from her and not looking after in having physical marital life with her. 14. The degree of burden of proof required in matrimonial cases is not one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence in a matrimonial case will have to be decided on the basis of broad preponderance of probabilities. The learned Judge has assessed the evidence on the touchstone of intrinsic probabilities. 15. The petitioner lost her husband in the year 2008 and she is a rich lady having property worth several millions in Mangalore. It is true that she knew that respondent was not rich enough to be compared to her; but her expectation was that respondent should treat her as a good husband. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that serious incompatibility of two parties is as a result of mismatch. It has come to the conclusion that personal feelings who lives in a high society is about the attitude of her husband and the same is not to her expectation. Further, it has come to the conclusion that the petitioner's assertion that petitioner's husband is interested in extracting money from her cannot be found fault with. His attitude creates an irritable attitude to PW-1 who is living in a high society and this aspect is considered as cruelty. 16. Apart from this, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that marriage has been broken down irretrievably and that with two prior divorces, absolutely there is no scope for rapprochement between the parties in any manner. The Trial Court, on the basis of the probabilities, has come to the conclusion that cruelty meted out is real cruelty because of the action omission of the respondent. Though petitioner has not been able to prove effectively the physical cruelty meted out to her, she has been able to prove that the respondent's attitude amounts to cruelty. The Trial Court, on the basis of the probabilities, has come to the conclusion that cruelty meted out is real cruelty because of the action omission of the respondent. Though petitioner has not been able to prove effectively the physical cruelty meted out to her, she has been able to prove that the respondent's attitude amounts to cruelty. In fact, respondent has made a false allegation against the petitioner alleging that she had even asked him to clean the house and canal which is utterly false. No prudent lady, who is rich would expect her husband to clean the house and canal. Whatever loyalty respondent has shown to the petitioner, is only because the respondent has an eye on her property and belongings. Taking all these aspects into consideration, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been able to prove that that the respondent has treated her with cruelty. It has further come to the conclusion that there is no use in ordering for restitution of conjugal rights. 17. The evidence also discloses that he had not disclosed to PW-1 about his earlier two prior marriages and divorces he had obtained. Thus, he had suppressed the material facts and this is also one of the cause for her to feel deceived. Viewed from any angle, there is no scope to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as unfit for admission. ORDER The appeal is dismissed as unfit for admission. There is no order as to costs.