JUDGMENT : Anupinder Singh grewal, J. This intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2001 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 218/1996 whereby while accepting the appeal, the decree of the trial court granting divorce to the parties was set aside. 2. The parties had married in accordance with Hindu rites in 1983. They are stated to have lived together from 1983 till 1990. A child was also born on 02.11.1989, where after their relationship was strained. The appellant husband (hereinafter referred to as the 'husband') had filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. It was alleged by the husband that after 1989, the respondent wife (hereinafter referred to as the 'wife') had left the matrimonial home on her own and started living with her parents. Her behaviour and attitude was very cruel. She was short-tempered & quarrelsome, and always out to create unpleasant scenes. She had refused to work at home and was not preparing meals and even threatened that she would commit suicide. It was also alleged that conduct of the wife towards the mother of the husband was quarrelsome. In the written statement filed by the wife, these allegations were denied and it was stated that she had been properly discharging the duties of wife, and that the husband had filed the petition for divorce as he was having affair with a lady employee working in his office who had been, in fact, frequently visiting their house. It was further alleged that whenever the lady employee would come to their house, the husband would ask the wife to go out and whenever she had protested against this behaviour of the husband, she was harassed by him. She had also stated that she had earlier also been forced to leave her house and when her in laws had taken her back to the matrimonial house, she was again beaten up by the husband and sent back. She had further stated that she was always willing and prepared to live with her husband. On the basis of these pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues: "1. Whether the respondent wife was misbehaving with the husband petitioner and whether such as behaviour amounted to cruelty and whether she was short-tempering and quarrelsome and was raising quarrel? 2. On the basis of these pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues: "1. Whether the respondent wife was misbehaving with the husband petitioner and whether such as behaviour amounted to cruelty and whether she was short-tempering and quarrelsome and was raising quarrel? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce; 3. Whether the petitioner was keeping any illicit relations with Radha and the petition has been filed because of that reasons." 3. The trial court, while deciding issue No. 1 in favour of the wife, held that the husband has not been able to prove that the alleged behaviour of the wife amounted to cruelty. With regard to issue No. 3, the trial court held that the husband did not have any illicit relations with his lady colleague. However, the trial court, after holding that this issue No. 3 had not been proved, also held that the averment made by the wife in the written statement alleging illicit relations of the husband with his lady colleague being the reason for filing petition, itself amounted to cruelty and hence the husband was found entitled to the decree of divorce. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is apparent that the trial court granted divorce to the husband on the ground that the allegations made by the wife in the written statement alleging illicit relationship of the husband with the lady colleague is the motive of filing the petition for divorce, amounted to cruelty. However, the pleadings of the husband with regard to cruelty on the part of the wife, were confined to the wife having misbehaved with him and she was quarrelsome and short-tempered. The evidence which had been led by the husband was also in support of these allegations. There was no allegation levelled by the husband that the conduct of the wife alleging his illicit relationship with his colleague amounted to cruelty. It is only the trial court, which had culled out these allegations from the written statement filed by the wife without framing any issue to this effect, and held that these allegations amounted to cruelty and consequently granted divorce to the husband. It is only the trial court, which had culled out these allegations from the written statement filed by the wife without framing any issue to this effect, and held that these allegations amounted to cruelty and consequently granted divorce to the husband. In the event of the trial court, prima facie finding that these allegations levelled by the wife in the written statement amounted to cruelty, it ought to have framed an issue in this regard and given adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their stand. It is no doubt true that in a given circumstance mere act of the wife levelling such grave allegations of illicit relationship may amount to cruelty, but it is necessary that an issue be framed in this regard and the evidence be led before arriving at the conclusion that these allegations stand proved and amount to cruelty resulting in grant of divorce. It was quite possible that in case such an issue had been framed, the wife may have withdrawn the allegations or been able to prove that there was no intention on her part to make any such allegations amounting to cruelty. 6. Furthermore the trial court, having held that the issue No. 1 in favour of the wife that her conduct and behaviour was not such which would amount to cruelty, could not have turned around and recorded a contrary finding that the singular act of the wife in levelling allegations in the written statement against the husband amounted to cruelty. 7. We do not, therefore, find any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the appeal on the ground that the allegations levelled by the wife in the written statement could not amount to cruelty leading to grant of divorce by the trial court in the absence of any pleading in this regard. The husband has not stated in his petition that the averments of the wife in attributing motives in filing the petition due to his illicit relationship with the lady colleague amounted to cruelty. We draw support from the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelam Kumar v. Dayarani [ (2010)13 SCC 298 ] wherein it was held that no decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty can be granted unless the person seeking divorce proves cruelty on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence. We draw support from the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelam Kumar v. Dayarani [ (2010)13 SCC 298 ] wherein it was held that no decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty can be granted unless the person seeking divorce proves cruelty on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence. 8. During the pendency of this appeal, a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2014, while considering the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 preferred by the wife, enhanced the interim maintenance from Rs.8,500/- to Rs.12,500/- per month with effect from 01.03.2014. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the husband has stated that the amount of the maintenance is on higher side as the husband is drawing a meagre salary and that the amount which had been granted vide order dated 12.03.2014 was both towards the maintenance of the wife and son who is now about 25 years of age and capable of maintaining himself. Hence, the interim maintenance amount needs to be reduced. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the wife has, however, stated that this amount cannot be held to be excessive as the husband, being a salaried employee, has adequate means to maintain his wife who is unemployed and has no source of income. 11. We are of the view that this amount of Rs.12,500/- per month is fully justified as it is evident from the salary statement of the husband for the month of September, 2013 that his gross salary was Rs.42,900/- and his net salary after deductions was Rs.25,199/-, and 50% of the net salary of the husband towards the maintenance of his wife and son, cannot be held to be excessive or on the higher side. There is no evidence that the son has been employed in the interregnum and hence he would not be entitled to any maintenance. Even assuming that son has been employed in the interregnum, we do not find any justification to reduce this amount towards maintenance. In such an event, the reduction of expenses towards the maintenance of son would be offset by the inflation as almost two years have elapsed from September, 2013 when he was drawing the aforementioned salary which was the standpoint for determining maintenance. In such an event, the reduction of expenses towards the maintenance of son would be offset by the inflation as almost two years have elapsed from September, 2013 when he was drawing the aforementioned salary which was the standpoint for determining maintenance. We can take judicial notice of the fact that there would be an increase in the salary during the last two years which coupled with the inflation would justify higher maintenance for the wife. Therefore, it would be just and proper if the amount of maintenance of Rs.12,500/-, as directed by the Court, is continued even after the disposal of this appeal. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Single Judge which would warrant any interference in this intra court appeal. 13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, we direct that the wife shall continue to be paid maintenance at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month. Appeal Dismissed As above.