Judgment S.P. Rajkhowa, J. 1. THIS appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 24th March, 1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Nadia in Matrimonial Suit No. 113 of 1985. By the said judgment and decree the learned District Judge has dismissed the suit, of the plaintiff filed Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree divorce against his wife Menoka Biswas. 2. IT is evident from the plaint/petition filed by the plaintiff/appellant Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act that he has sought a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty simpliciter. The respondent cantested the suit by filing a written statement denying the allegation that she has ever done any act of mental cruelty of any sort. 3. THE parties went to the trial mainly on the ground of mental cruelty. THE learned judge has held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that his wife tortured him mentally and dismissed the suit. 4. THE only point that requires our consideration is whether the respondent is guilty of inflicting mental cruelty on the petitioner/appellant. After leading us through the evidence on record, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff has been able to establish his case that the respondent inflicted mental torture upon the plaintiff, the magnitude of which is such that it amounts to mental cruelty of the highest degree and attracts the provision of Section 13(l)(e) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the evidence on record has negatived the case of the plaintiff. Both sides have placed reliance on certain reported decisions which will be discussed at appropriate places. 5. THE appellant's case is that he had married the respondent on 20th January, 1982 at Phulia, P.S. Santipur, District Nadia, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies but on the very bridal night he could not consummate the marriage as the respondent would not allow him even to touch her for the reason best known to her. This refusal by the respondent to consummate the marriage continued thereafter. THE respondent stayed for some days at the matrimonial home at Salua for 'Astamangala' and thereafter went to village Pallashipara where she was serving as a teacher in a Girl's School. This refusal by the respondent to consummate the marriage continued thereafter. THE respondent stayed for some days at the matrimonial home at Salua for 'Astamangala' and thereafter went to village Pallashipara where she was serving as a teacher in a Girl's School. She resigned from her service and joined as Assistant Head Mistress in Phulia Balika Vidyalaya where she is now promoted to the post of Head Mistress. She used to come to Salua weekly to meet her husband, the petitioner, but refused to share the bed with him and on a certain night in the middle part of May 1982 when the petitioner made an attempt to co-habit with the respondent, she repulsed him and abused him in filthy language by addressing him as 'monstar' 'dog' 'vulgar' etc. As a result the petitioner got a rude shock in his mind. Unsatiated sex-urge told upon his health and he had to suffer terribly. He was depressed due to the cruel behaviour of the respondent. Because of her constant refusal to cohabit, he became indifferent to her and the respondent giving a twist to the turn of events, circulated amongst the neighbours of the petitioner imputing his character, the allegation that the petitioner has got extra marital connection with his sister-in-law, i.e. his elder brother's wife, knowing it fully well that the elder brother and his wife were living separately. Not content with such circulation one day the respondent charged the petitioner and his elder brother and elder brother's wife alleging such nasty affair in front of the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner was dumb founded at such nasty allegations and it only aggravated his mental agony. Such imaginary and false accusation made by the respondent is not only cruel but also derogatory to the prestige of the petitioner. Such imaginary and false accusation made by the respondent is not only cruel but also derogatory to the prestige of the petitioner. However the respondent succeeded in convincing the neighbours by such false accusation against the petitioner with the result that some of them began to tease the petitioner on the way of his coming and going to his place of service and the petitioner could not tolerate the same and at last he was compelled to leave his village in the month of February, 1984 and began to live in the house of his elder sister and brother-in-law at the advice of the members of his family and since then he has been living at Chakdah in the house of his brother-in-law. THE further case of the petitioner is that the respondent did not show any respect to her in-laws at her matrimonial home and began to stop her coming to the matrimonial home from the month of November, 1982, but she resumed to come to the matrimonial home for stay for one hour or two hours for the last one year since before the filing of the suit. THE false accusation made by the respondent and her attempt at assassfcflation of character of the petitioner together with the other factors stated above had made a cumulative effect on the mind of the petitioner which has caused a reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would be harmful and injurious to him to live with the respondent and that it has become impossible for him to live with her. According to the petitioner, the respondent went a step further to make a false complaint before the Sub-divisional Officer, at Ranaghat (under whom the petitioner is an employee) involving the petitioner with the wife of his elder brother. 6. THE respondent has contended that the petitioner's case is absolutely false. According to her the truth is that after her marriage while staying at her matrimonial home she found that the petitioner was haying extra marital connection with his elder brother's wife for which the neighbours were so much disturbed that they compelled the petitioner to leave his native place. While she was staying at her matrimonial home, she came to know from the neighbours that the petitioner was in the habit of leading an immoral life with his elder brother's wife. While she was staying at her matrimonial home, she came to know from the neighbours that the petitioner was in the habit of leading an immoral life with his elder brother's wife. Naturally the respondent used to protest against her husband's conduct and his immoral life but the petitioner became angry at such protest and he did not mend his ways and so she was compelled to say something against the said mode of leading of his life with which his own neighbours were disturbed and according to her the utterence of such words was natural in a conjugal life. However the uncle of the respondent intervened in the matter and asked her to write to her husband begging apology so that her husband may rectify himself and shun ugly mode of life and accordingly she wrote a letter to her husband. On 18.12.82 petitioner's elder sister and her husband had taken the respondent to the petitioner at Shalua, but the respondent was not allowed to stay there for more than 2 days and thereafter she was driven out of his house. THE petitioner falsely circulated that she was mentally disordered and as a matter of fact one Pal Babu, a friend of the petitioner once came to the house of the sister of the respondent at Fulia to observe if the respondent was suffering from any mental disorder. On 9 2.84 the respondent with some of her relations went to Ranaghat to go to her husband's house and therefrom went to Shalua. But this time also she could not pass more than 3 days at that house and was thereafter driven out. But some local boys on coming to know of this situation had taken the respondent to her husband's house and asked the petitioner not to drive her out. THE petitioner complied with that direction of those local boys but ultimately the petitioner left the house without letting the respondent know of his whereabouts. THE respondent stayed at her father-in-law's house and attended her school at Fulia and the petitioner also during this time used to come and go from Chakda to Shalua. THE petitioner complied with that direction of those local boys but ultimately the petitioner left the house without letting the respondent know of his whereabouts. THE respondent stayed at her father-in-law's house and attended her school at Fulia and the petitioner also during this time used to come and go from Chakda to Shalua. THE petitioner used to see the respondent at his said house but always was in the habit of avoiding her and one day he threatened her to kill her and ultimately drove her out of the said house and since then the respondent was residing at the quarters at Fulia. Through the intervention of some of the friends of the petitioner, on 3.3.85 she came to the house of the respondent at Shalua and the respondent was allowed to stay there and she led her conjugal life for about 10/15 days but again she was driven out after that period. Finding no way out, the respondent was compelled to file a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat stating the whole state of affairs between herself and the petitioner, as the petitioner was serving under the said Sub Divisional Officer and requested him to take steps so that the respondent can lead a peaceful life with the petitioner. THE respondent concluded her written statement with the recital that if she has said anything against the petitioner with respect to his leading adulterous life that was due to the petitioner's mode of leading such life which was reinforced by the wide circulation amongst the neighbours who put pressure on the petitioner to mend his ways or to leave Shalua. We have referred to the pleadings of the parties above in detail in view of the provision of Section 20(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for short the Act which lays down that such statements may be referred to as evidence. We are, however, aware that it is a family established rule that the ground for relief In a matrimonial cause should be strictly proved. Bearing this in mind, we are approaching the evidence on record to find out as to whether the petitioner has been able to establish his case. The petitioner by examining himself as P.W. 1 has deposed to the facts in support of his plaint case. Bearing this in mind, we are approaching the evidence on record to find out as to whether the petitioner has been able to establish his case. The petitioner by examining himself as P.W. 1 has deposed to the facts in support of his plaint case. In regard to his averment regarding the nasty incident in the middle of May 1982, he has stated that on that occasion he made an attempt to enjoy sex by force. But his wife dashed him down from the cot and abused him with the words, 'kukur' 'saitan' 'danab' etc. When cross-examined on this point he has stated that the respon dent gave out in Bengali "Boudir Sange Thake, Kukur, saitan, danab". In regard to his averment that the respondent was making false allegations of adultery against him with his elder brother's wife, he has stated that in January 1984 the respondent again visited his house at Shalua and gave out in front of his mother and elder brother that he had illicit relationship with his elder brother's wife. He was cross-examined on this statement. He has replied that his wife in presence of himself and the local people present on public road gave out that he had Illicit relationship with his elder brother's wife. He did not admit the defence suggestion that he had consummated the marriage on the bridal night. P.W. 2 Smt. Sarala Bala Biswas is the mother of the appellant. She was aged about 85 years on the date of her deposition which was 9th December 1986: Regarding the incident in May'1982 she has stated that one night five months after the marriage of the petitioner she heard the row from the bed room of Samiran and came out of her room. Samiran also came out of his bed room by opening the door and told her that Menoka (respondent) pushed him down from the cot and he was lamenting over the marriage with the respondent. On the point of the respondent's allegation of adultery against her she has stated that one morning in a winter while she along with her elder son and his wife was sitting at her courtyard Menoka came and told her that Samiran had illicit relationship with her elder son's wife. Thereafter a trouble cropped up and local people collected there. She heard Menoka to abuse Samiran with the words 'kukur' 'danab' 'saitan' etc. Thereafter a trouble cropped up and local people collected there. She heard Menoka to abuse Samiran with the words 'kukur' 'danab' 'saitan' etc. Menoka gave a publicity turnishing the character of Samiran. The local boys came to her and used to take her into task. Being ashamed Samiran left for Chakda. In her cross examination she has stated that Chiranjib, her eldest son also knows about the row referred to above. She asked both the parties about the reason of the row Menoka did not give any reply but her son gave out what Menoka had done. P.W. 3 is Chiranjib Biswas, elder brother of the appellant. He has corroborated both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in material particulars. 7. THE respondent examined herself as O.P.W. 1. Supporting her case in the written statement, she has deposed that after the marriage with the petitioner, she came to his house and resided with him as his wife and the marriage was consummated and for about one month she was leading a happy life. Thereafter she marked that her husband was spending time at his elder brother's wife's bed room and on one occasion she found her husband in compromising position with his elder brother's wife in the bed room of Mohit Biswas at about 2/2.30 p.m. (Mohit is the younger brother of the petitioner). She has denied the incident that occurred in the month of May 1984. She has denied that the abused her husband by calling him 'danab' 'kukur' etc. She has denied that she was in the habit of giving publicity to the alleged illicit relationship between her husband and his sister-in-law. She has stated that sometimes she heard from elderly women of the locality to say whether she was pulling well with her husband. She did not reply to those queries and that she could not give the name of any one of them. In her cross-examination she has stated that she had written in her written statement that on one occasion she found her husband and his boudi in compromising position. She has admitted that she made a complaint against her husband before the Sub-Divisional Officer at Ranaghat but that she did not state in that complaint that her husband was involved in illicit relationship with his boudi. Her other witnesses viz. O.P.W. 2 Susanta Kr. Mondal and O.P.W. 3 Netai Ch. Chakraborty are related to her. She has admitted that she made a complaint against her husband before the Sub-Divisional Officer at Ranaghat but that she did not state in that complaint that her husband was involved in illicit relationship with his boudi. Her other witnesses viz. O.P.W. 2 Susanta Kr. Mondal and O.P.W. 3 Netai Ch. Chakraborty are related to her. THE sustance of their evidence is that Menoka was not treated well at her matrimonial home. 8. FROM the above it is seen that both sides have confined themselves to examining only the relations and not any outsider. However, we do not find anything to disbelieve in the statements of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Both of them have testified to the incident of May 1984. It was embarrasing for the petitioner to disclose everything before his mother and elder brother but the petitioner has disclosed in his evidence as to what transpired in his bed-room on that oecassion. On the point of giving publicity to the false allegation by the respondent, the admitted position is that the petitioner left his matrimonial home at Salua and left for Chakda in the month of February 1984. The respondent has stated in her written statement that the petitioner was accused by the close neighbours that he was illicit connection with his elder brother's wife for which the neighbours were so much disturbed that they compelled the petitioner to leave his native place and wilfully the petitioner left his village. The respondent has not examined any one amongst those neighbours who disclosed the things to her and poisoned her ears. Although she has deposed in Court that on one occasion she saw her husband in a compromising position with his sister-in-law yet this is nothing but an innovation as this fact does not find a place in her written statement. The respondent has stated that on many a occasion she used to come to the house of her husband and stated with him. The petitioner also has not denied this fact and in his cross-examination he has even stated that after marriage his wife stayed with him for 4/5 months and during that period they used to sleep in the same room and sharing the same bed. But that during those 5 months he had no sweet relationship with his wife and his positive case is that he could not consummate the marriage. But that during those 5 months he had no sweet relationship with his wife and his positive case is that he could not consummate the marriage. We cannot give much weight on the facts of sharing a common bed by the couple. They may share the bed. But there may not be sex-act. Such a morbid state is possible- There is no medical evidence to show that the respondent had enjoyed sex with her husband after the marriage. There is no allegation from the side of the respondent that her husband is important Similarly there is no allegation from the side of the husband that the respondent has lost her facundity. It is stated by the respondent that after the marriage she co-habited with her husband for 5 months and the marriage was consummated. Despite this assertion of the respondent she had not conceived. This fact lends credence to the petitioner's centention that the marriage was never consummated. (We got the information that the couple is issueless. when we tried to effect reconciliation between1 the parties in the chamber of one of us -Ahmed-J). The respondent has denied that she had hurled abuse on her husband such as 'danab' 'kukur' 'saitan'. But in para-7 of her was she has indirectly admitted although not in so many words, that she uttered some words against her husband only to disconnect him from his bad company. Should we then accept the position that the moral standard in the modern society has gone so low that the husband may be called a dog by his wife with impunity? The respondent is not only educated but she is the Head Mistress of a Girls' Educational Institution. Such conduct does not behave of an educated woman of that position. From the above discussions our findings are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had not been consummated; that the story of the respondent that the petitioner was having extra marital relation with his sister-in-law is false and that the petitioner's allegation that the respondent abused him by saying 'danab' 'kukur 'saitan' is true. 9. RELYING on the decisions, Smt Ambujamv. v. T.S. Ramaswamy, Smt. Pushpa Rani v. Kirshan Lal, Shri Pranab Biswas v. Smt. Mrinmayee Dessi, Calcutta Law Times (1989) (1) HC page 104, Harendra Nath Burman v. Smt. Suprova Burman and Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. 9. RELYING on the decisions, Smt Ambujamv. v. T.S. Ramaswamy, Smt. Pushpa Rani v. Kirshan Lal, Shri Pranab Biswas v. Smt. Mrinmayee Dessi, Calcutta Law Times (1989) (1) HC page 104, Harendra Nath Burman v. Smt. Suprova Burman and Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane, the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the unfounded allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner and her conduct towards him constitute legal cruelty. In the case, the husband was found guilty of desertion because he completely neglected inspite of his wife's repeated pleadings and urging to receive her on any terms. The husband was also found guilty of causing mental cruelty to the wife because of strain caused to her of such wilful separation for years and complete denial of coitus The learned Counsel submits that in the case in hand, it is the complete reverse of the facts of this reported case. Here the wife is guilty of wilful neglect of her husband and of causing strain on her husband by denial of coitus. Her conduct has caused much mental agony to her husband. In the case, the husband filed the petition Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife made false charge of adultery at the time of cross-examination and in her depositions. It was held that the false charge can be considered to establish cruelty even though it was not taken in the pleadings. In it was held that in order to constitute cruelty, the action of offending spouse must be volitional, intentional, deliberate and designed to be cruel and that a solitary act followed by remorse will not amount to cruelty as referred to in Section 10(1) (b) of the Act. The learned Counsel submits that this reported case from Calcutta can be distinguished from the facts of the case in hand Here there is not a solitary act of cruelty but a bundle of cruel actions Moreover this decision was rendered before the amendments of 1976 came Into force. The learned Counsel submits that this reported case from Calcutta can be distinguished from the facts of the case in hand Here there is not a solitary act of cruelty but a bundle of cruel actions Moreover this decision was rendered before the amendments of 1976 came Into force. After the amendment arty solitary act of cruelty is sufficient to give relief to either of the spouses In the case reported in Calcutta Law Times (1989) (1) HC 104 it has been held that an unfounded or baseless allegation of adultary in the pleadings and evidence constitutes extreme mental cruelty on which a decree for dissolution of the marriage can be passed. is a classic case of a wily and petulent wife. It is one of the brilliant reports rendered by the Supreme Court in matrimonial suits, very often referred to at the Bar. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions in this reported case that the burden of proving cruelty lies on the petitioner, that as regards standard of proof, the petitioner need not establish the charge of cruelty beyond reasonable doubt and that the grossly excessive behavioural pattern of the respondent/wife would amount to cruelty within Section 10(l)(b) of the Act. 10. ON the other hand the learned Advocate for the respondent has referred to two decisions of the Allahabad High Court, Smt. Gurbachan Kaur v. Sardar Swaran Singh and Smt. Sulochana v. Ram Kumar Chauhan. In the husband was accusing his newly wedded wife of carrying illicit pregnancy and the wife was alleging in her written statement that the husband was having adulterous relations with his sister-in-law. It was held that under the circumstances of the case the allegation of the wife could not constitute an act of cruelty to warrant a decree for dissolution of the marriage being passed against her. The facts of the case are almost similar to the facts of the earlier decision of the said High Court referred to above i.e. the facts of the case reported in Relying on the earlier decision, the Allahabad High Court has held that the allegation made by the wife in her written statement that her husband was having adulterous relationship with his sister-in-law did not constitute cruelty. The facts of these two reported cases from Allahabad High Court can very well be distinguished from the facts of the case in hand. The facts of these two reported cases from Allahabad High Court can very well be distinguished from the facts of the case in hand. In the first case, the husband made a false allegation of illicit pregnancy before marriage against his newly wedded wife. That allegation was found to be false and so it was observed that there cannot be a worse allegation against a newly married woman than an allegation of unchastity by her husband. The respondent persisted in making that allegation against the appellant and so if by this grossly improper and undesirable conduct of the respondent the petitioner felt provoked and made a counter-allegation of unchastity against her husband, it cannot be said that the counter-allegation amounted to an act of cruelty. In the other case the husband alleged Inter alia that their 2-year old son was born to the appellant (wife) on account of her illicit connection with some other person. During trial this allegation was found to be false and so relying on the earlier decision the Allahabad High Court held that the counter-allegation made by the wife did not constitute cruelty. 11. RELYING on the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant we hold that the petitioner has been able to establish the grounds of mental cruelty in the conduct and behaviour of the respondent and she is guilty of cruelty. We have already said that we tried for effecting a reconciliation between the parties but we failed. The marriage between the parties has collapsed. It is a fit case where a decree of divorce is justified. 12. IN the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree appealed against are set aside. The suit stands decreed and the marriage between the parties stands dissolved with effect from today. Parties are left to bear their respective cost.