JUDGMENT : Mir Dara Sheko, J. This appeal is directed against a judgement and decree dated 27th October, 2014 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 13 of 2013 by the Additional District Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair dismissing the application for dissolution of marriage under section 10 (IX) and (X) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 without any order as to costs. The petitioner has come up in appeal. 2. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner/appellant is as follows:- a) The petitioner, ordinarily a resident of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, is a Christian by faith. b) The petitioner is a Government servant under the Forest Department, working as a labourer. c) The respondent also a Christian by faith was given in an arranged marriage on 25th February, 1989 which was duly registered before Sub-Registrar, Kerala. d) The parties started living in conjugal relationship at a house constructed by the petitioner at Hope town, Bamboo flat. e) A male child was born out of the aforesaid wedlock. The parties led a happy married life until March 2004. f) In or about March 2004 the respondent developed an extramarital relationship with one Shri Shaji also a resident of Hope town. Soon thereafter the respondent accompanied by the said Shri Shaji left the islands and stayed with the said Shri Shaji in the mainland for a period of about four months. g) In or about August 2004 the respondent came back after she had developed differences with the said Shri Shaji and begged for mercy of the petitioner for her mistakes. The petitioner in good faith and out of love and affection, both for the child and the respondent agreed to take her back. h) After the respondent was resettled in the house of the petitioner she once again started indulging in extramarital relationships with the said Shri Shaji. Upon protest she insisted that the petitioner should also permit Shri Shaji to reside at her matrimonial house to which the petitioner was not agreeable. i) The relationship between the parties naturally became bitter. The petitioner was also threatened of dire consequences including loss of life. He in the circumstance left his own house and started residing at a rented accommodation since August 2004. j) Even that did not satisfy the respondent; she started demanding the entire salary of the petitioner. i) The relationship between the parties naturally became bitter. The petitioner was also threatened of dire consequences including loss of life. He in the circumstance left his own house and started residing at a rented accommodation since August 2004. j) Even that did not satisfy the respondent; she started demanding the entire salary of the petitioner. k) In the year 2007 the petitioner filed a suit for divorce, registered as Matrimonial Suit in No. 26 of 2007, which was, however, dismissed for default. l) The present application for dissolution of marriage was filed on or about 12 December, 2012. 4. The respondent in her written statement has admitted that the petitioner has been residing separately but such separation according to her commenced in February 2007. No other allegation tabulated above has specifically been denied. Besides evasive and sweeping denial case of the respondent in her written statement is that the petitioner "developed an attitude of hatred and abhorrence for the respondent." She has alleged that the petitioner continuously treated her with contempt and abused her in an intoxicated condition. He is given to alcoholic drinks and that the allegations are imaginary and have been concocted in order to obtain divorce. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- "Issues 1. Is the suit maintainable in the present form? 2. Has the court any jurisdiction to try the suit? 3. Has the petitioner/husband any good cause to file this suit? 4. Whether the respondent O.P/Wife has inflicted any sort of torture on the petitioner/husband? 5. whether there is any possibility of both sides to reside together peacefully? 6. Is there any sufficient ground on the part of the husband/petitioner to file the petition prying for divorce? 7. Is the petitioner/husband entitled to get any relief as prayed for? 8. To what other relief, if any, the petitioner may get?" 6. The issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in the affirmative. The issue No. 3 was not answered at all. The issues No. 4 and 6 were answered in the negative. Consequently issue No. 5 was answered in the affirmative and as a further consequence thereto the issues No. 7 and 8 were also answered in the negative. 7. The issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in the affirmative. The issue No. 3 was not answered at all. The issues No. 4 and 6 were answered in the negative. Consequently issue No. 5 was answered in the affirmative and as a further consequence thereto the issues No. 7 and 8 were also answered in the negative. 7. The petitioner in his examination-in-chief by an affidavit, under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has reiterated on oath his case tabulated above and added that "he has never taken liquor" in his life. He has also deposed that "he used to give his entire salary to the respondent" for household expenses and that he left his own house to save his life. During cross examination by the respondent he deposed that he had constructed the house after taking permission from the Government. His relatives are also residing in that area where his house is situated. He has denied the suggestion that he tortured his wife after taking liquor. He has denied the suggestion that due to torture his wife was residing separately. He has denied the suggestion that his wife was residing with him till 8th February 2007. He has admitted that he did not report the matter to the police. He denied the suggestion that he voluntarily has been living separately and without any coercion. He has denied the suggestion that he has prayed for dissolution of marriage on imaginary grounds. 8. Besides examining himself the petitioner also examined Smt. Jameli who is the petitioner's sister's daughter. She in her examination-in-chief by affidavit, under Order 18, Rule 4of the Code of Civil Procedure, has deposed that her matrimonial house is next to the house of the petitioner and the respondent herein. 8. Besides examining himself the petitioner also examined Smt. Jameli who is the petitioner's sister's daughter. She in her examination-in-chief by affidavit, under Order 18, Rule 4of the Code of Civil Procedure, has deposed that her matrimonial house is next to the house of the petitioner and the respondent herein. She also deposed that she had seen Shaji who "used to come to the house of the respondent and used to leave the house in the evening times only." She also deposed that "in the month of March 2004, the respondent left the house of the petitioner with the male child with Shri Shaji." She has deposed that after the respondent had developed differences with the said Shri Shaji she begged for "the mercy of the petitioner and assured the petitioner that she will not repeat the earlier mistake and also promised to the petitioner that she will live with petitioner as a faithful wife. Such assurances were made in front of me, and all other elder relatives." She also deposed that "that most unfortunately the respondent miserably failed to keep her promise with the husband and instead she restarted the illicit relationship with the same person and both of them started meeting each other." She deposed that she had "seen many times that Shri Shaji was again coming to the house of the petitioner in his absence." She has also deposed that "respondent told that she wanted to reside in this house because Shaji is unable to take a house on rent and if the petitioner won't leave the house then the petitioner along with her paramour will kill him, and hearing this the petitioner and myself was shocked. That this incident created disturbances in the life of the petitioner and left his house and now living alone in a rented house and the respondent started living with Shri Shaji in the house of the petitioner." She has also deposed that the petitioner "never used to take liquor and never used to beat the respondent during their matrimonial life. The family of the petitioner and the respondent was broken only because of the illicit relationship of the respondent with the person namely Shaji. The family of the petitioner and the respondent was broken only because of the illicit relationship of the respondent with the person namely Shaji. That the respondent used to cause mental torture, disgrace, threatening of life and harassment to the petitioner and also leading immoral life." Her cross-examination by the respondent is reproduced below in extenso:- "I received no summon from court. I filed no document in respect of my residential proof. Petitioner is my maternal uncle. Respondent was a housewife. Not a fact that para 8 and 9 of my affidavit in chief is not true. It is fact that I did not mentioned the name of my relatives in para 9. Not a fact that para 10 of my affidavit in chief is not true. Not a fact that para 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 21, 22 and 23 of my affidavit in chief are not true. I came to court with the petitioner as per request of petitioner. Not a fact that I am deposing falsely as per request of petitioner and to support the case of petitioner. Not a fact that as I am not residing near the house of petitioner so I did not produce any document. Not a fact that I do not have any personal knowledge about this case." 9. The respondent in her examination-in-chief by affidavit did not deny the fact:- a) that she begged for mercy of the petitioner; b) that she insisted upon the petitioner to allow the said Shri Shaji to reside at her matrimonial house or else his life would be in danger; c) She did not deny that Shaji used to come to the matrimonial house of the respondent during the absence of the petitioner and used to leave the matrimonial house in the evening as deposed by the PW-2. d) She has neither denied nor been able to weaken the evidence of PW-2. e) She has admitted during her cross-examination that she has been residing at the matrimonial house with her 17 years old son. f) She has admitted that she has been getting Rs. 3000/- on account of maintenance for herself and Rs. 2000/- for her son and she has also filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance from an aggregate sum of Rs. 5000/- to an aggregate sum of Rs. 10,000/-. 10. The respondent has also examined her minor son. f) She has admitted that she has been getting Rs. 3000/- on account of maintenance for herself and Rs. 2000/- for her son and she has also filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance from an aggregate sum of Rs. 5000/- to an aggregate sum of Rs. 10,000/-. 10. The respondent has also examined her minor son. Although he denied that his mother had any illicit relationship with Shri Shaji, but he made a significant admission that "Thereafter I requested my father to take us back but he denied." 11. The question of the son requesting the father to take them back would not have arisen unless there was a previous separation. 12. The learned Trial Judge in answering both the issue no. 4 and 6 in the negative ignored altogether the evidence that the respondent had left her matrimonial home in March 2004 accompanied by said Shri Shaji and that she came back in August 2004 and begged for mercy of the petitioner. He has ignored the fact that the petitioner had agreed to take her back owing to his love for both the child and the respondent. 13. The learned Trial Judge discarded the evidence of PW-2 on the ground that she was a relative of the petitioner and that she had come to give evidence without any summons form the Court and that she did not produce any document to show that she resided in the neighbourhood of the matrimonial house of the respondent. In doing so the learned Trial Judge ignored altogether the fact that the PW-2 had deposed that her matrimonial house was in the neighbourhood of the house of the petitioner and the respondent. This fact was not disputed by the respondent herself. The suggestion that the PW-2 did not reside in the neighbourhood, which she denied, does not have any evidentiary value. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement of this Court in the case of Binapani Roja v. Rabindranath Sarkar and others reported in AIR 1959 Calcutta 213 para 7. A suggestion is a mere notice to the other side as regards the case of the party, the respondent in this case. No evidence in support of such suggestion was adduced. A suggestion is a mere notice to the other side as regards the case of the party, the respondent in this case. No evidence in support of such suggestion was adduced. There was as such no reason for the learned Trial Judge to insist upon production of any document to show that she is a neighbour of the matrimonial house of the respondent. 14. The evidence of PW-2 could not have been discarded just because she is a relative of the petitioner. In a matrimonial suit it would be inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and depose. The family members in such cases are natural witnesses. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement of the apex Court in the case of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal reported in 2012 (7) SCC 288 . The following views were expressed in paragraph 39. "39. Presently, to the core issue, viz, whether the appellant husband had made out a case for mental cruelty to entitle him to get a decree for divorce. At this juncture, we may unhesitatingly state that the trial court as well as the first appellate court have disbelieved the evidence of most of the witnesses cited on behalf of the husband on the ground that they are interested witnesses. In a matrimonial dispute, it would be inappropriate to expect outsiders to come and depose. The family members and sometimes the relatives, friends and neighbours are the most natural witnesses. The veracity of the testimony is to be tested on objective parameters and not to be thrown overboard on the ground that the witnesses are related to either of the spouse. Exception has been taken by the courts below that the servants of the house should have been examined and that amounts to suppression of the best possible evidence." 15. The learned Trial Judge ignored the plethora of evidence as regards the illicit relationship between the respondent and the said Shri Shaji. The learned Trial Judge commented upon absence of independent local witnesses. When the case of the appellant in his application for dissolution of marriage by and large went un-controverted by the respondent herself in her written statement the allegation contained in the application stood admitted by virtue of rules of pleading contained in Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The rules governing the field provide as follows:- "3. The rules governing the field provide as follows:- "3. Denial to be specific-It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. 4. Evasive denial-Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances. 5. Specific denial.- [(1)] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission." 16. Section 58 of the Evidence Act, on top of that, provides as follows:- "58. Facts admitted need not be proved.- No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions." 17. Moreover the learned Trial Judge failed to realise that under the Evidence Act what is important is the quality of evidence and not the quantity thereof. Reference in this regard may also be made to section 134 which provides as follows:- "134. Number of witness.- No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact." 18. Reference in this regard may also be made to section 134 which provides as follows:- "134. Number of witness.- No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact." 18. The learned Trial Judge commented upon the fact that the petitioner did not lodge any complaint with the police "against his wife regarding leading of immoral life by his wife." The aforesaid comment is altogether devoid of any merit. Adultery is a punishable offence under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code so is a threat to cause death or grievous hurt under section 506 of the Code, but the legislature has advisedly not made the offences cognisable ones. Therefore, reporting the matter to the police would have been a futile exercise. Moreover no one in the Indian society would like to give publicity to such matters because they have an adverse effect and visit the parties with a social stigma. The fact that the learned Trial Judge ignored the legal evidence and gave importance to the points indicated above are a pointer to show that he did not apply his judicial mind to the fact and circumstances of the case. The learned Trial Judge laid stress upon the fact that the respondent deposed "that the petitioner did not take care of her and her child rather he developed an attitude of hatred and abhorrence with her and her child." The learned Trial Judge would have realised if he had applied his judicial mind that the aforesaid evidence of the respondent corroborated the case of the petitioner that she was living in illicit relationship with Shri Shaji. The learned Trial Judge did neither try to understand nor did he question as to why had the petitioner developed hatred and abhorrence for the respondent and her son. The respondent herself did not disclose any logical reason for any such behaviour. It is the case of the petitioner that he had been living a happy married life until March 2004. This fact was not denied by the respondent. The alleged abhorrence or hatred allegedly developed by the petitioner is bound to be an incident which took place subsequent to March 2004. What had actually transpired, if it was not a sequel to the illicit relationship between the respondent and the said Shri Shaji. This fact was not denied by the respondent. The alleged abhorrence or hatred allegedly developed by the petitioner is bound to be an incident which took place subsequent to March 2004. What had actually transpired, if it was not a sequel to the illicit relationship between the respondent and the said Shri Shaji. The learned Trial Judge did not realise that suggestions which have been denied do not prove any fact. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement of this court in the case of Binapani Roja v. Rabindranath reported in AIR 1959 Calcutta 213 para 7. A suggestion to the PW-2 that she did not reside near the matrimonial house of the respondent which she denied cannot discredit the evidence of PW-2 on oath that her matrimonial house was in the neighbourhood of the matrimonial house of the respondent herein. If the respondent had given that suggestion it was for the respondent to prove that the matrimonial house of the PW-2 was not in the neighbourhood of the matrimonial house of the respondent. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that "It is not clear that whether she is residing near the house of the petitioner" is a gross mis-assessment of the evidence. 19. The learned Trial Judge relied on the evidence of the DW-2 for the purpose of finding that the petitioner was torturing the respondent after consuming liquor, but he gave no credence nor any importance to the fact that the evidence of both the PW-1 and PW-2 that the petitioner never touched liquor had remain un-controverted. 20. The learned Trial Judge opined that "no document is there to prove the allegation on the respondent." We are surprised to see such a comment made by a senior Judicial Officer. What documentary evidence could there have been as regards the illicit relationship between the respondent and her paramour Shri Shaji. If existence of any documentary evidence is improbable or highly improbable, is it fair on the part of the court to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses on the ground that no documentary evidence had been adduced. What documentary evidence could there have been as regards the illicit relationship between the respondent and her paramour Shri Shaji. If existence of any documentary evidence is improbable or highly improbable, is it fair on the part of the court to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses on the ground that no documentary evidence had been adduced. The learned Trial Judge relied upon the evidence of DW-2 that he had denied that "Shaji use to come to their house and had illicit relationship with his mother till date." Is it possible for a grown up child aged about 17 years, who is living under the same roof with his mother to admit that she is in illicit relationship with her paramour. The learned Trial Judge relied on his evidence, but did not attach any importance when he deposed that "I requested my father to take us back but he denied." The learned Trial Judge altogether ignored the evidence of the PW-1 and the PW-2 in this regard which by and large had remained un-controverted. 21. The learned Trial Judge opined that PW-2 failed to show that her residence is situated near the house of the petitioner. He evidently ignored following evidence of the PW-2:- "That my matrimonial house is next to the house of the petitioner and the respondent herein." 22. He also ignored the fact that this part of her evidence was not even touched during her cross-examination. The learned Trial Judge should have realised that object of cross-examination is to test the veracity of the witness. When the witness was not tested in that way, her testimony has to be accepted. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement in the case of State v. Bhola Singh reported in AIR 1969 Rajasthan 219. The following views were expressed in paragraph 12 of the judgement. "12.A careful scrutiny of the statements of the above 3 witnesses shows that they have not been shaken in any material particulars in the course of their cross-examinations. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the system of administration of justice allows cross-examination of witnesses for the purpose of testing their veracity and it must be assumed that when the witnesses were not tested in that way, their evidence has to be accepted, unless, of course, there are inherent improbabilities. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the system of administration of justice allows cross-examination of witnesses for the purpose of testing their veracity and it must be assumed that when the witnesses were not tested in that way, their evidence has to be accepted, unless, of course, there are inherent improbabilities. In other words, when the opponent declines to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he believes that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. This is the rule of essential justice. Here cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused in respect of the examinations-in-chief of these 3 eye witnesses does not indicate any material improbability and the statements of the witnesses remain unchallenged." 23. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that "The petitioner fails to prove illicit relationship of the respondent" was arrived at by ignoring the evidence on record. Consequently the finding recorded by the learned trial judge that "so I find that there is not cause on the side of respondent for which the petitioner left his house" is equally fallacious. It is true that the respondent has not deserted the petitioner for two years as required by Section 10 (1) (IX) of the Divorce Act. But it is also true that she has by her conduct ousted the petitioner from his own house with effect from August 2004. The learned Trial Court found that:- "the petitioner which occurred due to illicit relation of the respondent along-with other person, but it is already discussed that the illicit relationship of the respondent is not proved. So simultaneously the ground of cruelty is not proved and it is also failed." 24. The aforesaid finding is patently contrary to the evidence on record. There is ample evidence to hold that the respondent has been having illicit relationship with the said Shri Shaji. Such illicit relationship coupled with the threat to his life forced the petitioner to leave his house. Such illicit relationship also amounts to cruelty. There is evidence on record to show that there was direct threat to the life of the petitioner both by the respondent and the said Shri Shaji who were in illicit relationship. Therefore, the ground under section 10 (1)(X) of the Divorce Act was adequately proved. 25. Such illicit relationship also amounts to cruelty. There is evidence on record to show that there was direct threat to the life of the petitioner both by the respondent and the said Shri Shaji who were in illicit relationship. Therefore, the ground under section 10 (1)(X) of the Divorce Act was adequately proved. 25. The learned Trial Judge has answered the issue No. 5 in the affirmative because he came to an erroneous finding as regards issues No. 4 and 6. Since the finding as regard issue No. 5 is based on erroneous finding with respect to issue No. 4 and 6, the finding recorded with respect to issue No. 5 is also bad and illegal. The issues No. 7 and 8 were also decided in the negative consequent to the erroneous finding of issue No. 4 and 6. When premise is wrong the conclusion is also wrong. Therefore finding recorded with respect to issues No. 7 and 8 are also wrong. 26. We are satisfied that the petitioner has not in any manner been an accessory to the illicit relationship between the respondent and the said Shri Shaji nor has the petitioner condoned the same. We are also satisfied that the respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful for the petitioner to live with the respondent. 27. The appeal in the result succeeds. The judgement and decree under challenge is set aside. We pronounce decree nisi dissolving the marriage between the petitioner/appellant and the respondent. It will be open to the appellant to apply before the trial court for an order making the decree absolute after six months. There shall be no order as to costs. The registry is directed to send a copy of the judgement to the learned judge whose order is under challenge for his perusal. I agree. Appeal allowed.