The judgment and order dated 18th May, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner/District Judge at Shillong in Divorce Suit No. 3 (T) of 1996 is the subject matter under challenge in this appeal. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows : 2. The appellant namely Smti Madhumallee Dutta as a plaintiff filed a petition under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty by contending inter alia, that she was married to the respondent on 26th February, 1988 under Hindu customary rites and out of the said wedlock a son and a daughter were born on 9th January, 1989 and 8th March, 1993 respectively and, immediately after the marriage the petitioner-appellant could realise that the respondent suffers from sexual perversion as the respondent is a maniac whose sexual desire is unsatiable and very often the respondent used to come home with Video Cassette of Blue Film and view them after dinner and the appellant was forced by him to view those nauseating movies as the movies progressed the respondent would start violent love making with the petitioner- appellant in the line of disgusting action in the movie which would at times continue till 2/3 AM and, side by side the respondent need to drink heavily and forced the petitioner to perform and take part in extremely unusual erotics which caused pain in her body particularly in and around the uterous and the respondent also used to force the petitioner to suck his male organ till ejaculation into her mouth which would often end in vomiting by her and any kind of refusal by her would invite physical assault by the respondent. It is also the case of the appellant-petitioner that she was forced to drink and smoke in course of traumatic love making and rather, she was made to work from early morning till 9/10 PM which gradually reflected on her health and mind adversely and she fell a victim to acute nervous disorder and became almost bed ridden by April, 1994 and, lastly she sought for help from her parents and in the last week of June, 1994 appellant's father brought her and two minor children to Shillong and treatment by Physicians at Shillong did not improve her condition and she was removed to Guwahati, Assam by her father where she was under treatment of 2 (two) doctors for about 3 (three) months; during which period neither the respondent nor any member of his family ever visited the petitioner even for once not to speak of extending any financial support to her and in the month of July, 1994, the respondent took away her son from her parents house and due to continuous ill-treatment, the appellant could not any longer subject herself to sex-related torture by the respondent and the appellant has permanent apprehension in her mind that there is a danger to her life if she resume's cohabiting with the respondent and having no alternative the appellant filed the petition for a decree of divorce as against the respondent. The case of the petitioner-appellant was resisted by the respondent-husband namely, Shri Subhas Dutta by stating inter alia, that the appellant is a very short tempered lady having no sympathy, love and affection for anybody except herself. The case of the petitioner-appellant was resisted by the respondent-husband namely, Shri Subhas Dutta by stating inter alia, that the appellant is a very short tempered lady having no sympathy, love and affection for anybody except herself. Immediately after the marriage she made her desperate attempt to drive out the helpless sister of the respondent from the joint family and on being unsuccessful on her attempt she adopted an indifferent attitude towards the respondent and became very arrogant in nature having no care or fear for anybody and she is in the habit of leading an extravagant, unrestrained life as she used to remain out of home for the whole day without any information to anybody in the house and any'question or enquiry about her where about, used to make the petitioner became arrogant culminating to quarrel with the respondent and his sisters and her movement in the town was a great concern for the prestige and dignity of well reputed family of the respondent and, apart from it, the petitioner always used to tell the respondent that he is not match for and, her increasing hatred towards the respondent caused considerable gap in the relation between the husband and wife having no physical relation altogether immediately after the birth of the second child. The respondent denied all the allegations made by the appellant-petitioner in the plaint save and except which are specifically admitted in his written statement and that the respondent however urged that he has been holding a responsible post in the office of the Food Corporation of India and he is eminently known for his well, gentle behaviour and decent taste and did not attempt about the exhibition of Blue Film to the appellant-petitioner. The respondent went on to contend that he made considerable financial contribution to the medical treatment of his mother-in-law when she undergone a prolong treatment at Thakur Pukur Cancer Hospital, Calcutta and subsequently at Nazareth Hospital, Shillong and even he paid a sum of Rs .25,000 to the appellant-petitioner for her treatment, maintenance of her and her daughter. The respondent went on to contend that he made considerable financial contribution to the medical treatment of his mother-in-law when she undergone a prolong treatment at Thakur Pukur Cancer Hospital, Calcutta and subsequently at Nazareth Hospital, Shillong and even he paid a sum of Rs .25,000 to the appellant-petitioner for her treatment, maintenance of her and her daughter. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner in order to desert the society of the respondent in the name of her so called disease left the marital home and is liable for desertion without any -genuine cause and that there is no cause of action for the suit as claimed by the e appellant in her petition and that the respondent did not treat with her any cruelty whatsoever which should led to her to file the instant suit for divorce long after their marriage. 3. On the basis of the pleadings so far made by the parties in the related, plaint and written statement, the trial Court framed as many as 6 (six) issues for just determination of the real points in controversy between the parties and those issues are quoted below : "1. Whether the instant suit is maintainable according to law ? 2. Whether there is any cause of action for filing the instant suit ? 3. Whether the petitioner deserted the respondent or whether she was forced to leave the matrimonial home by unbearable circumstances 4. Whether the petitioner was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by respondent ? 5. Whether petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce ? 6. What reliefer reliefs the parties are entitled to ?" 4. The appellant as a petitioner examined herself as a witness in support of her case and likewise, the respondent himself alone as witness in support of his case. Both the parties also produced certain documents like medical certificates, receipts etc in support of their cases. 6. What reliefer reliefs the parties are entitled to ?" 4. The appellant as a petitioner examined herself as a witness in support of her case and likewise, the respondent himself alone as witness in support of his case. Both the parties also produced certain documents like medical certificates, receipts etc in support of their cases. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Judge at Shillong disposed of the said divorce suit by holding that since the petitioner/appellant is found not to be entitled for a decree of divorce, no relief is found to be entitled by her and the suit is held not to be maintainable and there is no cause of action for filing the instant suit under the related impugned judgment and order dated 18.5.1998 passed in Divorce Suit No.3 (T) of 1996. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order mentioned above, the petitioner as appellant herein filed this appeal. Mr. LR Das, the learned counsel supporting the case of the appellant highlighted all grounds being grounds Nos (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (1) taken in the memo of appeal which finds its place at paragraph 5 of it and contended that the available evidence clearly established that the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty and there is enough evidence on record that the relationship between the parties as husband and wife has irretrievably broken down and on this ground alone the decree of divorce ought to have been granted by the learned Court below however, the learned Court below has completely misappreciated the related provisions of law while passing the impugned judgment and order. At the hearing Mr. G. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel supported the case of the respondent and also the findings of the learned Court below made in the impugned judgment and order and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgmen and order and no prima facie case is made out by the appellant. 5. At the hearing Mr. G. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel supported the case of the respondent and also the findings of the learned Court below made in the impugned judgment and order and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgmen and order and no prima facie case is made out by the appellant. 5. This Court on 2 (two) occasions made attempts for settlement amongst the parties in respect of their disputes and differences and for reconciliation of the matter between the parties even with the assistance of Mrs PDB Baruah, a learned lady lawyer acting as a welfare expert rather assisting the Court but it was utterly failed and having no alternative the appeal was heard finally on its own merit. 6. Now this Court to see and examine as to whether the respondent had treated the petitioner-appellant with cruelty after the solemnisation of their marriage and whether, the petitioner-appellant could make out a prima facie case of cruelty as required under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and whether the learned Court below had misappreciated the evidence on record or not. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the available materials/evidence on record, I am of the view that the appellant-petitioner could make out a case under section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the relationship of husband and wife has irretrievably broken and, apart from it, the learned Court below misappreciated the evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment and order for the following reasons : (1) A bare perusal of the evidence of the appellant-petitioner recorded by the learned Court below established the fact that because of the sexual perversion of the respondent which the respondent used to continue till 2/3 AM the appellant-petitioner suffered both mentally and physically and, as such, abnormal and unusual approaches towards love making by the respondent affected the health of the appellant and finally she had a nervous break down and this evidence remains intact. The factum of application of force by the respondent to the appellant-petitioner for unnatural physical relation from the second day of her marriage also remained intact. The factum of application of force by the respondent to the appellant-petitioner for unnatural physical relation from the second day of her marriage also remained intact. The respondent admitted that the appellant tried to disobey her husband's request to see the Blue movies with him but he used to threaten her and that though it is unusual being sexually perverse by a father of 2 (two) children but it is correct. It is also on record that the respondent's case is that the nervous break down of the appellant is by way of natural cause but not due to sexual perversion of her husband ^n other words, the respondent admitted to the factum of his sexual perversion. It is relevant and important evidence of the appellant which is quoted below : "Because of this perversion which he is used to continue till 2 to 3 AM I suffered both mentally and physically. The very abnormal and unusual approached towards love making by the OP affected my health and finally I had a nervous break down. My ailment was so much pain so that I have to be treated at Guwahati by specialist. When I was suffering my in-laws informed my father who brought me to Guwahati for treatment. My husband did not accompany me (examination-in-chief)-" "My husband used to force for unnatural physical relation from the second day of my marriage ... ... I tried to disobey my husband request to see the Blue movies with him but he use to threatened me... ... My husband use to drink everyday.Though it is unusual of being sexually perverse by a father of 2 children but it is correct ..It is not a fact that my nervous breakdown is by way of natural cause and not due to sexual perversion of my husband." (cross examination portion) (2) The respondent admitted in his evidence that because of the petitioner/ appellant's nature the conjugal life was not happy right from the beginning and the appellant petitioner did not love him and as of now there is no scope for harmonious living between the petitioner-appellant and himself. This evidence finds its place in the cross portion of the evidence of the respondent. 8. This evidence finds its place in the cross portion of the evidence of the respondent. 8. From the above evidence alone, it can easily be concluded that the respondent had treated the petitioner-appellant with cruelty after the solemnisation of their marriage and that the petitioner-appellant could make out a prima facie case for divorce on the available evidence On record but the learned Court below had misappreciated this evidence on record while passing the impugned judgment and order and on this ground alone the impugned judgment and order deserves to set aside. 9. It is well established that 'cruelty' postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the petitioner's mind that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other spouse. The clause applies as well to cases of mental cruelty, which may cause even more serious injury than physical harm and create in the mind of the injured petitioner such apprehension as is contemplated in the section. The question of cruelty must be determined from the whole facts and matrimonial relations between spouses. Regard must be had to their culture, temperaments, status in life, state of health of the parties interaction between them in their daily life and numerous other factors which cannot be brought in and confined to an exclusive or inclusive definition. Existence of cruelty depends not on the magnitude, but rather on the consequence of offence of cruelty, actual or apprehended. 10. Applying all these established principles of law mentioned above, I am of the view that there is existence of cruelty from the available evidence on record and the respondent had treated the petitioner-appellant with cruelty as discussed and highlighted above. For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, I am of the view that the appellant-petitioner has proved her case and, as such entitled for a decree of divorce and, accordingly, the marriage solemnised between the appellant and the respondent is hereby dissolved and the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant is hereby decreed thus, setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18th May, 1998 passed by the learned District Judge/ADC Shillong in Divorce Suit No. 3 (T) 96. In the result, the appeal is allowed but no order as to costs.