JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. This appeal is preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984. It arises out of judgement and decree dated 30th December, 2011 passed by the learned Principal Bench, Family Court at Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 182 of 2005, (Sri Anindya Deb versus Smt. Debjani Deb) filed by the husband under Section 13 (1)(I) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgement impugned aforesaid is assailed on the ground that the trial court erred in law as well as on facts in dismissing the Matrimonial Suit No. 182 of 2005 as it failed to appreciate that appellant had made out a clear case of cruelty and adultery by his wife as such the suit ought to have been allowed in his favour. Counsel for the appellant also assailed the judgement impugned on the grounds that not only the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence and materials on record i.e the contents of the diary maintained by the wife in her own hand writing, which according to the plaintiff/husband clearly established her illicit relationship with her alleged paramour Siraj Roy respondent no. 2, according to him, this conduct of the wife not only caused immense mental agony to the petitioner but also caused an irretrievable break down in the marriage between the petitioner and his wife. Therefore, the trial court erred in law as well as facts in holding that petitioner had failed to corroborate his case by totally overlooking the materials on record exhibited by him. That these were clinching evidence to prove that respondent no. 1 was involved in some kind of adulterous relationship. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a decree for divorce ought to have been drawn up by the trial court in favour of the husband upon the ground of adultery and cruelty by the wife. The case set out by the appellant Anindya Deb (husband of the wife respondent no. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a decree for divorce ought to have been drawn up by the trial court in favour of the husband upon the ground of adultery and cruelty by the wife. The case set out by the appellant Anindya Deb (husband of the wife respondent no. 1) is that his wife had a little bit of problem in her mental condition; she was ill-tempered and greedy lady who used filthy language when angry, that she sometimes shouted at the top of her voice and created a scene by trying to destroy the house-hold articles in the house; that he had noticed that his wife used to talk with several unknown persons on the cell-phone, given to her by her parents and whenever he made any enquiries as to whom she was talking to, she got annoyed and avoided answering him by using filthy language. According to the husband this raised suspicion in his mind that he was also threatened by her to be put behind bars by filing false proceedings under Section 498 A of the I.P.C and that he in the month of January for the first time came to know the name of the person with whom his wife used to maintain illicit relation. It is alleged that his wife used to note the messages received by her on her cell-phone, in her diary. From this he gathered that she had illicit relation with respondent. Not only this, she on 13/04/2005 confessed her relation and wrongful activities promising that she would conduct herself properly at all times. The appellant/husband in support of his case had relied upon an incident mentioned in plaint wherein he alleged that on 30/06/2005 when he came back from the “Shrad Ceremony” of his maternal uncle, he heard cries of his wife from in the house and reaching his bed room, found her in compromising mood with respondent no. 2 Siraj Roy whose clothes were in disorder. On seeing the petitioner, his wife and Siraj Roy jointly assaulted him with fists. It is claimed by the petitioner that in order to escape Siraj left rushed towards the roof and fled down with aid of rain water pipeline of the house. 2 Siraj Roy whose clothes were in disorder. On seeing the petitioner, his wife and Siraj Roy jointly assaulted him with fists. It is claimed by the petitioner that in order to escape Siraj left rushed towards the roof and fled down with aid of rain water pipeline of the house. The aforesaid incident of Siraj Roy was coming down from the second floor of the petitioner’s house with the help of drain pipe said to have been witnessed by the inmates and neighbours who had had lodged F.I.R of the incident which was recorded in G.D No. 2930 dated 30th June, 2005 and also claimed to have informed about this incident to his in-laws requesting them to take back their daughter to her parental home. The wife and the son are living with his in laws since 30/06/2005. The case was contested by the wife by filing written statement denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff/appellant husband in the matrimonial suit except the factum of marriage and birth of the child out of the wedlock. In her defence, the wife pleaded that her husband used to pressurise her for bringing money from her mother and brother for the purpose of starting business which was flatly refused by her; that in August, 2002 her husband under the influence of liquor, after assaulting and beating her mercilessly drove her out of the house but subsequently, he apologized requesting her to come back to live with him and that he had also beaten her on several other previous occasions. As regards her alleged extra marital affair with respondent no. 2 is concerned, her stand before the trial court was that she was not keeping good health and hence was being treated in the hospital; that Respondent no. 2 being the next door neighbour having seen the atrocity committed upon her by the appellant protested to him. Her husband, therefore, falsely implicated Siraj Roy in order to cover his own misdeeds. She also denied any illicit relation with respondent no. 2 as well as the allegations of alleged incident on 30/06/2005. Respondent no. 2 by his separate affidavit also denied the allegations of the husband of respondent no. 1, with regard to any illicit relationship with her made against him in the suit stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 2 as well as the allegations of alleged incident on 30/06/2005. Respondent no. 2 by his separate affidavit also denied the allegations of the husband of respondent no. 1, with regard to any illicit relationship with her made against him in the suit stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The Court framed the following issues on basis of pleadings of the parties: 1. Has the petitioner any cause of action to file this case? 2. Did the respondent no. 1 treat the petitioner with cruelty? 3. Is the respondent no. 1 leading a life of adultery with the respondent no. 2? 4. Is the petitioner entitled to get a decree of divorce in this suit on the ground of cruelty and adultery? 5. To what other relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled to? Some documents were tendered by the petitioner in support of his case, which were neither proved nor marked as exhibit in the case. Though he examined himself in the suit in support of his case. On the other hand, respondent no. 1 examined herself as D.W 1 for disclaiming the allegations of cruelty and adultery alleged against her. No evidence was led by Sri Siraj Roy (respondent no. 2) but he did cross-examine the husband P.W 1. Issue no. 1 was not pressed by the parties before the learned trial court. Issue nos. 2 and 3 were decided holding that in view of Section 102 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner/husband could not succeed on weakness of other side but has to prove his case. As regards the cruelty and destruction of house-hold articles, ill-tempered nature of his wife or her mental condition etc. is concerned, the Court held: “Mere this allegation there is no allegation of any torture or of cruelty against the respondent/wife. Mere saying that his wife was an ill-tempered and greedy lady or she became angry off and on can not be considered in the ordinary circumstances as instances of cruelty either mental or physical. Moreover, all such statements of P.W 1 remains uncorroborated. In absence of any corroboration by any witness it is difficult to accept it. The petitioner could have examined his inmates who saw the arrogant attitude of the respondent no. 1. The petitioner having failed to adduce any corroborative evidence. I am unable to accept this claim of the petitioners/husband. Moreover, all such statements of P.W 1 remains uncorroborated. In absence of any corroboration by any witness it is difficult to accept it. The petitioner could have examined his inmates who saw the arrogant attitude of the respondent no. 1. The petitioner having failed to adduce any corroborative evidence. I am unable to accept this claim of the petitioners/husband. So, it fails.” As regards the question of adultery as alleged by the husband is concerned, the court on appreciation of evidence diary and of SMS on wife’s mobile as well as the alleged incident dated 30/06/2005, found that the evidence led by the petitioner/husband on this point was not such, so as to reach to a conclusion that his wife had any extra marital relation with Siraj Roy respondent no. 2 as alleged in the plaint. In conclusion the Court held that ground of cruelty and adultery as brought by the petitioner/husband against his wife are not established to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience of the Court. On Issue nos. 4 and 5 the Court held that in view of the discussions on issue nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner/husband is not entitled to get any decree as prayed for. It accordingly dismissed the suit on merits against the petition without costs. After hearing counsel for the parties and upon perusal of records it is an admitted position that documents, tapes, diaries etc. tendered by the petitioner/husband in the trial court were not exhibited as they were not proved; hence there could not be read in evidence and have rightly not been read in support of the petitioner/husband. Apart from allegation of adultery in the plaint, and affidavit filed examination in chief, the petitioner did not try to corroborate and establish this fact by calling the inmates and other independent witnesses who are alleged to have seen Siraj Roy fleeing down the drain pipe from the house of the petitioner. The incident of 30/06/2005 of seeing respondent no. 2 fleeing away from the house of the petitioner down the drain pipe by the inmates of the house and the neighbours was in fact not proved by the petitioner by calling them as witness. The incident of 30/06/2005 of seeing respondent no. 2 fleeing away from the house of the petitioner down the drain pipe by the inmates of the house and the neighbours was in fact not proved by the petitioner by calling them as witness. The trial court, therefore, did not commit any error in appreciation of evidence, to hold that this alleged incident did not prove his wife to be adulterous as direct proof which was available to the husband in the form of eye-witnesses was not produced by him. As regards the SMS on telephone the trial court found that neither there was anything on record as to who sent the messages to the wife on her mobile nor there is anything to show that the wife maintained any extra marital relations with respondent no. 2 Siraj Roy, particularly when the petitioner, did not prove the entries in the diary or even that it was maintained by his wife. In these facts, we find that trial court rightly came to the conclusion that some quotations which were noted in the diary cannot be a basis to hold that wife was adulterous, without proof that they were in any manner related to or supplied by respondent no. 2, therefore, the said diary does not support the case of the husband/petitioner. We find that further on appreciation of evidence and cross-examination the trial court did commit any error in concluding that though the petitioner/husband stated that from the 2 or 3 SMS he could ascertain the names of the persons, as sender of the message but surprisingly there was not even a whisper about these persons in the plaint or in his examination-in-chief or about maintaining of extra marital relationship of his wife with said Amar Singh, Rajesh, Bijoy Maha etc. Similarly the contents of paper dated 13/04/2005 alleged to be a confession of the wife to the husband wherein it is said to have been written “Yami tomar sathe je yanyay korechi, aar kono din hobe na.” These lines also do not appear to indicate any extra marital affair of the wife any of the aforesaid persons or even Siraj Roy. There is even no indication as to what ‘yanyay’ had been done by her. There is even no indication as to what ‘yanyay’ had been done by her. Similar is the position of the paper on which only two words “friend and phone” are written does not prove any adulterous conduct of his wife and in any case these two papers were neither proved nor exhibited hence could not be read as evidence by the court in support of the allegations made in the plaint by the husband against his wife. Even no question touching the alleged incident dated 30/06/2005 also appears to have been put to the D.W 1 when she was in the witness box on several dates. It is not clear as to why she was not cross-examined on this point. As there is no explanation by the petitioner on this point, this conduct of his speaks volumes against his own case. In the facts and circumstances, we concur with the findings of the trial court in the impugned judgement that the evidence led by the husband on this point does not prove that the wife had any extra marital relation with Siraj Roy respondent no. 2 or any other persons as alleged by him. We also find that the ground of cruelty and adultery are also rightly been found not to have been established by the court below. For all the reasons stated above there does not appear to be any illegality, or infirmity or error in the findings of the impugned order dated 30/12/2011. The order impugned is affirmed and the F.A is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.