since he got married to Susan, he stays with Susan. He becomes very untruthful and moreover on oath. When he stated that he goes to the appellant’s house and that he lives with Susan. He rested his case. There was desertion which he testified to himself and there was no merit in his other statements that he loved the appellant. He actually split up his family by his own convictions to the two women, Susan and Doris. He actually broke up his family and the testimonies of his children in support of the appellants’ case, so revealing. When he stated on page 59, the 3rd paragraph and I quote. “I love my wife and I think she loves me. She couldn’t be caring for me if she did not love me. There is no reason why court should grant a divorce. Separation means splitting the family. I pray that my marriage is saved. The question is does a mere statement that he loves his wife constitute love when the actions as testified by the appellant and her witnesses and the respondent himself say the contrary. Does someone who loves his wife dare deal with 3rd parties in the union to make the relationship so crowded and worse still disrupt the Christmas and bring misery to the whole family? He is lair who wants to shift blame. He stated at that very page 59 that he lives with his 2nd wife Susan since they got married and that he lives with his 3rd wife in Arua who is a nurse. All the actions do not only establish desertion and adultery, but they establish cruelty on his part knowing very well that the appellant has a legal wife who even has a heart problem. It’s cruel and insulting of him to state that out of everything, the appellant/petitioner had done with him in respect of raising the children and the business. That he has no personal car, that he uses Susan’s car as if he found the appellant a pauper and she had made no contribution at all for the development of the family. For there is ample evidence to show that the appellant was not merely a housewife, but after she did a lot of business, the respondent found her not to be a fit and proper person to enjoy her sweat, hence getting these other women. This was cruel. He prayed that the divorce or judicial separation should not be granted but there was no gross competition, but even if it was to be there from his testimony, the respondent appears just wanting to enjoy to see the appellant suffering. At the hearing of the appeal, counsels made oral submissions. All these grounds were argued together. Ground number two was very important and I agree with the submissions of counsel for the appellant that she did not only wrongly evaluate the evidence but she failed miserably to evaluate the evidence on record and came to a wrong conclusion that there was no proof of cruelty. Article 24 of the Constitution of Uganda provides, ‘ “No person shall be subjected to any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.