From what I have summarized both from the testimonies of the appellant’s case and the respondent, it was apparent that the respondent was cruel to the appellant. Definitely the health of the appellant was in danger as it was a well known fact that she had a heart problem. If she had a heart problem coupled with the ill treatment of the respondent which included fighting and pushing her, there is no doubt that was correct that he was subjecting her to torture, cruel and inhuman treatment. He neglected her and all her children. Even the respondent himself testified that he lived with Susan and Doris, what’s more cruel than that. He was assaulting her. He even mortgaged the house she was living in with her children, what Leeds to cruelty than this? The appellant was conceding to what the appellant stated. The respondent could just come once in a while only to quarrel with the appellant and the children, who at one time got scared and had to call a friend of their Dad (respondent, to come and intervene). He was bringing other women in the matrimonial home when he had denied the appellant conjugal rights as he was not living with other. Isn’t that cruel. I agree with the counsel for the appellant in regard to the authority cited of Knot versus Knot [1955] 2 ALL ER. 305 – 311. I find this case to be almost on all falls with the instant case. The facts among others were that the husband acted in an aggressive manner towards the wife and there were quarrels between them. Then later the wife became ill with tuberculosis. The husband withheld full sexual intercourse and practiced coitus interruptus against the wife’s will. The court held that the husbands conduct as amounted to cruelty and further the refusal by the husband to allow his wife to have a child and the practice of coitus interruptus in disregard of whether it injured her health or not coupled with the appellant injury resulting there from amounted cruelty. “For the husband had adopted a course of conduct which preserved to himself sexual enjoyment measure” In the instant case, the respondent was no longer living with the appellant, but he was on and off, bringing his other women to her home, he had ceased to have conjugal rights with her, he was not maintaining her and the two children who were still at the university, and he mortgaged the house she was living in. There is evidence on record that the appellant was being supported by her brothers and sisters financially. This is what I have already stated in this judgment amount to cruelty, desertion and adultery. It is a fact and actually the respondent stated, so that he had children with the other two women, three of them. Counsel for the respondent in his submissions referred to the evidence of PW2 and PW3, but when their testimony is analyzed, they were testifying negatively against the respondent and confirming what PW1 stated, who was consistent and what PW1 stated was strengthened by DW1’s testimony (respondent). The respondent in his own words had said in his testimony that he was no longer part of the appellant’s family and that the children were big to care for themselves. I find no substance therefore in counsel for the respondent’s argument that the appellant didn’t prove cruelty. Even if there was a contradiction, the contradiction was so minor that it could not lead to the rejection of the appellant’s testimony. The respondent by and large concedes to the allegations and strongly supported the appellant’s case.