expected by DW1 from the appellant, the respondent has also stated with regard to the illicit affairs of the appellant which had led to the misunderstanding between the parties. In that regard, in the cross-examination, the suggestions put forth to the effect that he had misbehaved in front of their friends has been denied. In that circumstance when in respect of the only allegation made in the petition and put forth in the evidence of PW1, a suggestion was made and was denied by DW1 and further it is noticed that there is no other evidence tendered by the appellant to prove the allegation of the respondent having misbehaved with the appellant in front of the friends, the same to that extent, would stand nullified. Even with regard to the allegation made against the appellant relating to his illicit relationship, apart from the evidence as tendered by DW1, the eldest daughter of the parties, namely, Nijhuma Patra is examined as DW2. The affidavit evidence submitted by her has referred to in details with regard to the illicit relationship of the appellant herein and also the manner in which the appellant had hurt the sentiments of the respondent, more particularly with regard to the care that was refused when the respondent, her mother required treatment at NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore. In that regard, the said witness has also stated that since the appellant failed to accompany her mother, she had to go to Bangalore for the assistance of her mother. The evidence as tendered by DW2, in fact, has not been shaken in the cross-examination inasmuch as the suggestions put on behalf of the appellant to indicate that the allegation of illicit relationship is not justified has been denied and she has also asserted that the allegation of the respondent having committed mental torture is not justified and further stated that, in fact, the appellant has caused mental agony to the respondent. In addition to the evidence tendered by the members of the family, the personal driver of the respondent was cross-examined as DW3. In his evidence he has stated with regard to the respondent suffering due to the act of the appellant. Telephonic conversation has been referred to wherein the respondent was always pleading with the appellant to maintain a good relationship and in the said conversation, the respondent had also referred to the illicit relationship of the appellant with Mukti Devi @ Hemoprabha Devi. In that background, if the said evidence is taken note, not only the allegation as made by the appellant against the respondent would not be justified, but also in the instant facts
