Ajay Singha as P.W.3 and Smti Rita Das as P.W.4. The respondent had not chosen to tender any evidence. The Court below on analyzing the evidence was of the opinion that the allegation as made in the petition had not been established and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to decree of divorce. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgment has not only referred to the pleadings of the parties, but also the evidence tendered before the Court below. In that regard, it is contended that the appellant had tendered evidence to indicate the immoral activities of the respondent and, therefore, it was not possible for the appellant to continue with the marital relationship. It is the further contention of the appellant that the respondent though had filed a written statement and made certain allegations against the appellant, had not chosen to tender evidence and prove the same. In such circumstances, the unsubstantiated allegation made in the written statement specifically with regard to the character assassination of the appellant by itself would be sufficient to hold that the respondent had inflicted mental cruelty on the appellant. In that light, the learned counsel contends that the Court below ought to have taken note of the same and the marriage ought to have been dissolved.
