JUDGMENT : Kauser Edappagath, J. This is an appeal filed u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree in OP No. 846/2012 dated 26/5/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha (for short, 'the court below'). 2. The original petition has been filed by the husband, who is the appellant, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and cruelty and also for return of gold ornaments. The 1st respondent is his wife. The 2nd respondent is the alleged adulterer. The marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 10/9/2001 at the residence of the 1st respondent as per Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. A girl child was born in the wedlock on 11/7/2002. At the time of marriage, the appellant was employed at NEST. According to the appellant, right from the inception of the marriage, the 1st respondent used to quarrel with him and his family members unnecessarily. It is alleged that 1st respondent did not allow him to lead a peaceful life and constantly nagged him. It is further alleged that the 1st respondent wanted to lead a luxurious life which the appellant could not afford to. In May, 2008, the appellant got transfer to Bangalore. Thereafter, she started wayward life of her own and used to contact the appellant over phone only when she needed money and failed to discharge her marital obligation. In March, 2009, the appellant went to Gulf for job. Thereafter, she started illicit relationship with the 2nd respondent and when he came to know of it, he quit his job and returned home on 31/5/2010. It is alleged that the 1st respondent has been maintaining illicit relationship with the 2nd respondent. The appellant has projected a specific instance of adulterous act of the 1st respondent. It is alleged that on 11/11/2010 at 10.00 a.m., the 1st respondent was caught red handed from the house of the 2nd respondent. It was witnessed by the appellant, his father, the mother of the 1st respondent and local people. Thereafter, the 1st respondent's mother took her into an autorickshaw to her own house and since then, they are living separately. It was in these circumstances the divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty was sought. The appellant also claimed back wedding chain weighing 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments given by him to the 1st respondent. 3. Thereafter, the 1st respondent's mother took her into an autorickshaw to her own house and since then, they are living separately. It was in these circumstances the divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty was sought. The appellant also claimed back wedding chain weighing 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments given by him to the 1st respondent. 3. The 1st respondent filed objection statement denying the averments in the original petition. She specifically denied various instances of cruelty allegedly exercised by her on the appellant and pleaded in the original petition. According to her, it was the appellant who often quarrelled with her and failed to discharge the marital obligation. It was contended that the appellant misappropriated 42 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.50,000/- received by her as gift at the time of her marriage. It is further contended that the appellant did not pay any amount to maintain her or the child. The case of illicit relationship between the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent alleged in the original petition as well as the incident allegedly took place on 11/11/2010 was also denied. The 1st respondent sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. The appellant has also filed OP No.570/2013 for the custody of the minor child. Both the original petitions were tried together. The appellant was examined as PW1. His neighbour was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the appellant. The 1st respondent was examined as CPW1. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the respondent. After trial, the court below found that the appellant failed to prove cruelty as well as adultery on the part of the 1st respondent. The court below also found that the appellant cannot claim back the wedding chain given by him to the 1st respondent so long as the marital relationship continues. Accordingly, the original petition was dismissed as per the impugned judgment. Challenging the dismissal of the prayer for dissolution of marriage, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has not challenged the dismissal of his claim for return of gold ornaments. 5. We have heard Sri. S. Sanal Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K.S. Madhusoodanan the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Challenging the dismissal of the prayer for dissolution of marriage, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has not challenged the dismissal of his claim for return of gold ornaments. 5. We have heard Sri. S. Sanal Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K.S. Madhusoodanan the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Assailing the finding of the court below on adultery and cruelty, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the court below was unreasonable and unrealistic in the appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence on record were sufficient to prove adultery and cruelty alleged so as to grant a decree for dissolution of marriage u/s 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent, per contra, submitted that the burden is entirely upon the appellant to prove the alleged cruelty and adultery which he miserably failed to prove. The court below rightly dismissed the petition, argued the counsel 7. First, we will consider the ground of cruelty canvassed by the appellant. In order to prove adultery, the appellant relied on his own oral evidence and the evidence of his neighbour who was examined as PW2. It has come out in evidence that at the time of marriage the appellant was employed at NEST, Kakkanad. Thereafter in the year 2008, he was transferred to Bangalore and then he left to Gulf in 2009 March. In the original petition, the appellant has pleaded that after he left to the Gulf, the 1st respondent started to lead luxurious life and she developed unholy and illicit relationship with the 2nd respondent. He quit the job at Gulf and came back on 31st May, 2010. According to him, he came back when he knew about the illicit relationship between the respondents. The appellant has specifically pleaded an instance where the 1st and 2nd respondents were caught red handed at the residence of the 2nd respondent. According to the appellant, on 11/11/2010 at 10.00 a.m., the respondents were found alone together at the house of the 2nd respondent and they were caught by him, his father, the mother of the 1st respondent and few neighbours. Thereafter, the mother of the 1st respondent took her in an autorickshaw to her house. PW1 also gave evidence in tune with the pleadings mentioned above. Thereafter, the mother of the 1st respondent took her in an autorickshaw to her house. PW1 also gave evidence in tune with the pleadings mentioned above. The specific instance took place on 11/11/2010 was spoken to by PW1 in the evidence. PW2 has been examined to prove the incident that has taken place on 11/11/2010. He is the neighbour of the appellant. He deposed that he knew the respondents well and they were leading an illicit relationship. He further deposed that the 1st respondent used to visit the house of the 2nd respondent and he had seen both of them spending together in the closed room therein on so many occasions. He also deposed that he saw them together moving around intimately. He specifically deposed that on 11/11/2010, at about 10.00-10.15 a.m., while he was standing outside the house of the 2nd respondent, he saw the 1st respondent going to the house of the 2nd respondent. At that time, the parents of the 2nd respondent were not there. Immediately, he intimated the matter to the appellant over phone. After 45 minutes, the appellant along with his father and mother of the 1st respondent came and the 1st and 2nd respondents got out of the house and they were caught red handed. Thereafter, the 1st respondent along with her mother left in an autorickshaw. 8. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 have to be evaluated in the light of certain admissions and attended circumstances. Even though the 1st respondent has denied the alleged incident that has taken place at the house of the 2nd respondent on 11/11/2010, in her objection statement as well as in the chief affidavit, she has admitted that on 11/11/2010, the appellant quarreled with her unnecessarily and the appellant called her mother over phone who came and she went along with her mother to her house. In cross-examination, the 1st respondent has admitted that she knew the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has also admitted in cross-examination that she knew PW2. Though PW2 gave positive evidence that he witnessed the incident on 11/11/2010, nothing has been stated by the 1st respondent in her chief examination about PW2 or his evidence. The 1st respondent gave evidence much after the evidence of PW2. The 1st respondent has also no case that PW2 has any animosity with her. Though PW2 gave positive evidence that he witnessed the incident on 11/11/2010, nothing has been stated by the 1st respondent in her chief examination about PW2 or his evidence. The 1st respondent gave evidence much after the evidence of PW2. The 1st respondent has also no case that PW2 has any animosity with her. Even though PW2 has been cross-examined in length, nothing has been brought out in cross-examination to discredit his testimony. In the pleadings itself the appellant has stated that the incident on 11/11/2010 has been witnessed by the local people, though name of PW2 has not been specifically mentioned. We have perused the cross-examination of PW1. There is no effective cross-examination on the positive evidence given by PW1 regarding the illicit relationship between the respondents, specifically regarding the incident on 11/11/2010. We see no reason to disbelieve the evidence given by PW1 and PW2 about the illicit relationship between the 1st and 2nd respondents especially about the incident that has taken place on 11/11/2010. 9. The court below disbelieved the evidence of PW2 highlighting certain minor discrepancies in his evidence with regard to slight difference in time. The court below also found fault with the appellant for not examining his father or mother of the 1st respondent who witnessed the incident on 11/11/2010. True, either of them could have been examined. But, for the mere reason that they were not examined, the evidence given by PW1 and PW2 cannot be discarded. Discrepancies in the evidence of PW2 pointed out by the court below are minor in nature and insignificant. We have already found that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence given by PW2. 10. In a case where divorce is sought on the ground of adultery, the proof required to establish adultery need not necessarily be proof beyond a shadow of doubt. Proof by preponderance of probabilities would be sufficient. Direct proof of adultery can rarely be given. The circumstantial evidence is all that can normally be expected in proof of the charge of adultery. However, the circumstances must be such as lead to it by fair inference as a necessary conclusion. The allegation must be reasonably proved, there must be high degree of probability. As stated already, the oral testimony tendered by PW1 and PW2 is credible and trustworthy. We do not find any reason to reject it. However, the circumstances must be such as lead to it by fair inference as a necessary conclusion. The allegation must be reasonably proved, there must be high degree of probability. As stated already, the oral testimony tendered by PW1 and PW2 is credible and trustworthy. We do not find any reason to reject it. The 1st respondent has also admitted that on 11/11/2010 there was some quarrel between her and the appellant and her mother came and took her to her house. She has also admitted that she knew both the 2nd respondent and PW2. PW2 has not come forward to the court and denied the allegations levelled against him. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the preponderance of probabilities are in favour of the appellant. The appellant has succeeded in proving that after the solemnization of marriage, the 1st respondent had sexual intercourse with a person other than him so as to attract S.13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 11. In so far as the ground of cruelty is concerned, various acts of cruelty, both physical and mental, as well as harassment meted out by the appellant at the hands of the respondent have been spoken to in detail by him. Even though he has been cross-examined in length, nothing could be elicited to discredit his testimony. PW1 specifically deposed that right from the inception of marriage, the 1st respondent used to pick up quarrel with him. He further deposed that the 1st respondent wanted to lead a luxurious and wayward life and since he could not accede to the said demand, he was abused and humiliated. He has also highlighted a specific instance where she threw away the thali chain when she got angry. Regular instances of outrage and resentment on the part of the 1st respondent has been spoken to by the appellant. It has also come out in evidence that the 1st respondent has even physically assaulted their child. The appellant specifically deposed that right from the first day of marriage, there has been a sustained cause of abusive and humiliating treatment and reprehensible conduct on the part of the 1st respondent. As stated already, in 2009, the appellant went to Gulf seeking a better job. But he had to quit the job and come back when he knew about the illicit relationship of the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent. As stated already, in 2009, the appellant went to Gulf seeking a better job. But he had to quit the job and come back when he knew about the illicit relationship of the 1st respondent with the 2nd respondent. The evidence shows that even after he came back from Gulf, the 1st respondent continued her illicit relationship with the 2nd respondent and they were caught red handed at the house of the 2nd respondent on 11/11/2010. This act of the 1st respondent has caused much mental strain and agony to the appellant which is nothing but mental cruelty. The physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty. It is sufficient if the conduct and behaviour of one spouse towards the other is of such a nature that it causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him/her to continue the marital tie. The evidence on record shows that the parties have been living separately since 11/11/2010. The allegations and counter allegations levelled against each other establish that there is no further chance of rapprochement. Thus, we hold that the appellant has made out a case for granting a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty as well. In the light of the above findings, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment to the extent it rejected the relief of dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and cruelty. OP No.846/2012 stands allowed u/s 13(1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage between the appellant and the 1st respondent solemnized on 10/9/2001 is hereby dissolved. The parties shall bear their costs.