JUDGMENT : Rathnakala, J. 1. The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21-8-2014 in M.C.No. 2/2014 on the file of the Judge Family Court, Davangere, whereby petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act', is dismissed. 2. Succinctly stated, the wife filed the petition for divorce before the Court below; her case was, the parties were married as per Hindu customs on 21-12-1997. They lived happily together for there months only. The husband was alcoholic, used to harass the wife physically and mentally. On his divorced, her parents gave him dowry amount to see that their daughter pulls on in the marital home, but ill-treatment and harassment of the husband persisted on the wife. They are blessed with two children, one male and one female from the marriage. He suspected the fidelity of his wife and ultimately drove her from the matrimonial home on 10-8-2012. He is not amenable to any advise by the elders. He has not looked after welfare of the children and is not maintaining the family. 3. The respondent though appeared in person before the Court did not contest the case. The wife examined herself as P.W. 1. The learned Judge after giving audience to the wife has dismissed the petition. 4. In the present case also, the respondent though served is unrepresented. 5. We find from the lower Court records that the wife has placed her evidence by way of affidavit, reiterating what she had averred in her divorce petition. She had categorically stated that on 10-8-2012, her husband came home in a drunken condition, abused her filthily assaulted and threw her out of the house with a condition to get dowry amount from her parents. When her parents took the elders of the community to his house to enquire with him, he expressed his suspicious about fidelity of the wife, abused them by not allowing them to his house. Without any there go, she took her children to her custody and returned to her parents' house. Again on 20-12-2013 also, he came to her parent's home in a drunken condition, abused her filthily, demanded dowry and has put threat to her life. There was no cross-examination to the witness, since the husband remained absent. 6. Without any there go, she took her children to her custody and returned to her parents' house. Again on 20-12-2013 also, he came to her parent's home in a drunken condition, abused her filthily, demanded dowry and has put threat to her life. There was no cross-examination to the witness, since the husband remained absent. 6. It appears from the tone of the judgment of the Court below that the learned Judge expected corroboration to the evidence of the wife about the cruelty meted out on her. Though in her evidence she had cited the specific incidents of 10-8-2012 and 20-12-2013, be overlooks this piece of evidence and perversely observes that, she does not refer to any specific instances whereby he demanded dowry and not examined a witness, who knew about her plight in the matrimonial home. Not adducing corroborative evidence is conceived as a lapse for disentitling wife for relief by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has gone to the extent of reading in between the lines of the evidence and make out a new case that she has lived happily with the husband for about 13 years without any problem. On the said pretext, he declines to accept about the allegation of cruelty. 7. As regards rejecting the petition on the ground of desertion, the learned Judge on his own draws a perverse inference that there is no desertion for a continuous period of two years and declines to grant relief on the said count also. 8. In our considered opinion, the learned Family Court Judge misdirected himself while evaluating the evidence placed by the wife though there was nothing contrary to the one placed by the wife. The husband was served with the Court notice, had appeared before the Court and further did not contest the case. That means to say, he did not dispute the petition allegations. The inference drawn and the findings recorded by the court below is beyond propriety of the Court and is perverse. When there was no contest to the petition, he had no reason to look for corroboration, to whatever evidence placed by the appellant/wife before the Court. The proceedings in the matrimonial case being civil in nature, the parameters for appreciation of evidence are on preponderance of probabilities not on the scale of proof beyond all reasonable doubts. When there was no contest to the petition, he had no reason to look for corroboration, to whatever evidence placed by the appellant/wife before the Court. The proceedings in the matrimonial case being civil in nature, the parameters for appreciation of evidence are on preponderance of probabilities not on the scale of proof beyond all reasonable doubts. The conduct of the husband in not responding to the notice issued by this Court also indicates his disinterestedness in saving his marriage. The petition averments supported by the affidavit evidence of the wife is sufficient to grant relief on the ground of cruelty. Having specifically stated that she was driven out of the matrimonial home on 10-8-2012 and having filed the petition on 2-1-2014, there was no time gap of two years as required under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act entitling her for divorce. However, having proved the ground of cruelty as required under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act, when there is nothing to presume that she is taking advantage of her own wrong or condoned the Act of cruelty, there is no impediment to grant decree of divorce as prayed. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 21-8-2014 in M.C. No. 2/2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Davangere, is hereby set aside. The marriage between the parties held on 21-12-1997 is hereby dissolved. Registry to draw a decree accordingly. Appeal allowed.