The appellant didn’t say that it was the respondent who had caused the heart problem, but continuing to stay with the respondent with that conduct of his, was definitely aggravating her heart condition. She got married customarily in 1975, and then in 1992, the customary marriage was converted into a monogamous marriage by registering it, as a civil marriage. It’s therefore on record that she developed the heart problem when in marriage, but not necessarily that the respondent caused it. and that didn’t license the respondent to conduct himself the way he did. Infact, he would be more sympathetic and caring since it’s established that she didn’t marry him with that ailment. Counsel for the respondent tried to give evidence from the bar by stating that the petition was brought because of differences of ownership of property not because of desertion and cruelty. From perusal of the record, I find nothing to that effect so I find no merit in that submission. The appellant had given a comprehensive testimony on the properties which they together developed with the respondent and she testified that she does not receive any money from there. Actually from the evidence on record, she has been reduced into a pauper by the respondent’s actions which he didn’t deny. The properties listed are raising substantial money and therefore the respondent should be giving alimony of shs. 500,000/- to her every month for her necessities until she dies or remarries. After a careful evaluation and scrutinisation of the evidence on record, I find that there was overwhelming evidence adduced by the appellant to warrant the grant and or award of the prayers sought for in her petition. Cruelty was definitely proved to the required standard and in accordance with Article 32, the tradition where ‘man brings various women in a matrimonial home, behaves as the chief shepherd is against the dignity and welfare of a woman.’ In this particular case, the evidence is overwhelming and it amounts to cruelty and torture. The trial magistrate failed to evaluate the evidence on record and she misdirected herself on the standard of proof and therefore caused a miscarriage of justice when she failed to find for the appellant/petitioner. I accordingly allow the appeal in the following terms;i) The judgment and decree of the lower court is set aside. ii) Judgment is entered in favour of the appellant/petitioner iii) The appellant/petitioner is granted the relief of judicial separation and the consequential remedies sought in the petition. She should be left in the house where she is living now and be paid alimony of shs. 500,000/- per month for her necessities