JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. The judgment dated 1.6.01 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (Divorce) No. 14 of 98 dismissing the prayer of the petitioner-husband for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife has been assailed in the present appeal filed by him. 2. We have heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Bannerjee, learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. The factual matrix giving rise to the divorce proceeding may be briefly stated thus : On 30.1.97, the appellant and the respondent married according to Hindu rites and customs. But within a very short spell, to be more precise, from the very beginning, the marital relation suffered hiccups and stumbled again and again. It is the allegation of the petitioner that when he went to see the bride before marriage, he was not treated well by the respondent's father and other relatives who had made several queries regarding his place of birth and other particulars. He felt as if he was placed before a hostile interview board. After the introductory experience, he became unwilling to marry the respondent. But her brother later met him and sought unconditional apology for the treatment meted out to him. In addition, appellant's brother-in-law Gurupada Saha who was the match-maker persuaded him to agree to the proposal and accordingly the marriage ceremony was performed. At the very inception of the conjugal life, the appellant again became unhappy with the behaviour of his in-laws. The ceremony known as 'Dwiragaman' which is the normal social custom in every Hindu marriage to be performed within ten days from the date of marriage, could not be held due to reluctance of his in-laws. The friends and relatives of the appellant who accompanied him to the marriage in the house of the parents of the respondent were not treated well which had the after-effect in the mind of the appellant when he faced unpalatable remarks from them. 4. The marriage, thus, started with an extremely unhappy note which was further aggravated when the appellant to his dismay discovered that his wife was suffering from several diseases. Her face was affected with pustule and her head with tumour. He got offensive smell from her mouth. 4. The marriage, thus, started with an extremely unhappy note which was further aggravated when the appellant to his dismay discovered that his wife was suffering from several diseases. Her face was affected with pustule and her head with tumour. He got offensive smell from her mouth. He could not detect all these deformities at the time of his first encounter with her before the marriage because of heavy make up she had taken at that time. After the marriage, his father took her to the Doctor for treatment, but with no result. She had also other female diseases which she concealed from him. She used to sing loud Hindi cinema song and spent unusual time in the bath room. Often she was found talking to somebody over telephone whose identity she refused to disclose. Her memory was found to be very weak and because of her physical deformities and defects she had difficulty to sleep with the appellant. Once, during the absence of the appellant, the respondent slept with the appellant's mother when she allegedly throttled her. On another occasion, she alleged to have throttled the appellant himself. On 20.4.97, she disclosed to her mother-in-law that she had been suffering from chronic diseases for which she proposed to go to her parents' house for treatment. Accordingly, on the same day, she had left her nuptial home accompanied by her brother. It is alleged that from her parents' house, she used to misbehave with her mother-in-law and the appellant over telephone. Sometimes, she used to hurl threat that she would murder the appellant. All these behaviours and activities strained the relation to such a pass that it became impossible for the appellant to live with her. She also did not return to her marital home, but approached the Court for maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'CrPC'). The petition was allowed granting her maintenance which was challenged by the appellant in the High Court where he lost. A female child was born during her stay in her parents' house and it is alleged by the appellant that no prior information about her pregnancy was communicated to him and so he harboured a doubt in his mind whether he did at all father the child. A female child was born during her stay in her parents' house and it is alleged by the appellant that no prior information about her pregnancy was communicated to him and so he harboured a doubt in his mind whether he did at all father the child. As, according to the appellant, the relation between them reached to a point of no return, he had no other alternative but to approach the Court for dissolution of their marriage on ground of cruelty. 5. All the allegations, as aforesaid were, however, strongly refuted by the respondent-wife, contending, inter alia, that from the very beginning of her conjugal life, she was subjected to mental and physical torture. The allegation of several female diseases including foul smell from her mouth had been stoutly denied by her. It is her specific case that when she became pregnant and asked her husband to arrange her medical check up, he flatly denied. Then she was compelled to approach her father who then sent her brother to take her to her parents' house. There, she was under treatment during her pregnancy and in due course she gave birth to a female child. Surprisingly, though duly intimated, neither her husband nor her in-laws came to see the newly born baby which fact was enough for another shock for her. She was always ready and willing to live normal conjugal life with her husband, but all her requests and attempts to return to the marital home were foiled by the appellant-husband. It is the strong unwillingness of the appellant which stood in the way of reconciliation for resuming a happy marital life. She offered strong objection to the prayer for dissolution of the marriage as according to her, she did never behave her husband or her in-laws with cruelty. 6. Confronted with the rival pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties in support thereof, the learned trial Court proceeded to appreciate and evaluate the materials so advanced. The petition for divorce was presented under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (for short, the 'Act') on the ground of cruelty. Though cruelty has not been defined in the Act, it has to be understood, as has been enunciated in different pronouncements of the Apex Court, to be a situation in which it would not be safe for the parties to live together. Though cruelty has not been defined in the Act, it has to be understood, as has been enunciated in different pronouncements of the Apex Court, to be a situation in which it would not be safe for the parties to live together. In other words, the treatment of one party must be such that causes an apprehension in the mind of the other that it would be harmful or injurious to live a conjugal life. The word "cruelty' has not been defined as perhaps it cannot be defined, for the reason that a particular situation to be termed as cruelty cannot be accepted to be present uniformally in each and every case. Different situations in relation to different classes of people having regard to their status, education, culture and way of life may have to be appreciated to determine whether the same amounts to cruelty. When a particular behaviour in one case can be said to be cruelty, it may not be so in another case. Therefore, no strait-jacket formula can be devised for uniform application for the purpose of determining whether a particular situation amounts to cruelty. 7. In the case on hand, the appellant examined himself (PW 1) and his father (PW 2) only. PW 2 in his statement before the learned trial Court observed that the respondent used to talk over telephone to somebody whose identity was never disclosed and she used to spend hours together in the bath room with pieces of ice. Sometimes she was found singing Hindi cinema songs loudly and she was reluctant to sleep with his son in order to avoid him. All her above activities gave him the impression that she might be suffering from insanity. Tripura Council for Child Welfare made attempts for reconciliation between the couple which, however, failed. He claimed that he got her treated by Doctor Partha Pratim Saha, a Gynaecologist. This witness, however, could not explain how the facts depose, like her talk over telephone or long spell in the bath room or singing Hindi cinema song could amount to cruelty. There is no whisper in his deposition that at any point of time she had throttled her husband or her mother-in-law. This particular allegation of throttling made by the petitioner, thus, remains unsubstantiated. No independent witness such as a close neighbour of the appellant was examined to provide corroboration to the allegation. There is no whisper in his deposition that at any point of time she had throttled her husband or her mother-in-law. This particular allegation of throttling made by the petitioner, thus, remains unsubstantiated. No independent witness such as a close neighbour of the appellant was examined to provide corroboration to the allegation. Even no documentary or oral evidence was placed on record in support of her incurable diseases as alleged by the appellant. In his statement before the trial Court, the appellant himself repeated the allegations pleaded, though he strived strenuously to focus that the petitioner very reluctantly had entered into the marital tie with grievances and unhappiness parked in his mind. If in the first encounter itself, he was not happy with the look of the bride or behaviour of her parents, he should not have married her whatever might have been the pressure from his brother-in-law or other relatives for which the respondent-wife or her parents cannot be held liable. After stating his discomfiture arising from her physical diseases and deformities pleaded, he expressed his other discontentment when he stated in his deposition that the gifts of his marriage were not sent to his house by his in-laws. According to him, the departure of his wife on 20.4.97 was without his consent though his father stated nothing in support of this allegation in his deposition. On the contrary, in Para 14 of the plaint, it has been averred that the respondent-wife had disclosed to her mother-in-law about her physical problems following pregnancy and when her brother had come to take her to their house, the mother-in-law agreed to the proposal to send her to the parents' house and gave her Rs. 100/- for her personal expenses. Thus, the allegation that she had left the marital home without permission does not sound believable, particularly when the husband admittedly was always unhappy with her and did do nothing to arrange for her treatment when she was found to have conceived. 8. In support of the facts pleaded in the written statement, the respondent-wife examined herself (DW 1), her father Haran Chandra Saha (DW 2), her brother Timir Baran Saha (DW 3), her uncle Rabindranath Saha (DW 4) and Smt. Mallika Dasgupta (DW 5). 8. In support of the facts pleaded in the written statement, the respondent-wife examined herself (DW 1), her father Haran Chandra Saha (DW 2), her brother Timir Baran Saha (DW 3), her uncle Rabindranath Saha (DW 4) and Smt. Mallika Dasgupta (DW 5). What has emerged from DWs 1, 2 and 3 is that only for a period of 3 months and 11 days after the marriage the couple lived together and had co-habitation resulting to her pregnancy. The fact that the marriage had consummated has not been denied by the appellant-husband though he suspected paternity of the child born from the respondent. In the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary, it has to be held that if a child is born during subsistence of a marriage, the husband is the father of that child. After the said period of 3 months 11 days when her husband refused to take any care of her by arranging medical check up, she decided to go to her parents' house for treatment which she did on 11.5.97 after obtaining permission from her mother-in-law. Her brother (DW 3) came to take her to their house and, therefore, it cannot be said that the departure was against the will of her in-laws. When a total apathy on the part of her husband and other in-laws even after the child was born struck her and they stubbornly refused to take her back to her marital home, she along with her baby were left in a hapless condition as they had no place to take shelter except that of her parents. 9. She being without any independent source of earning and fully dependent on her parents found no other alternative but to approach the Court in a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance. Unfortunately, her prayer was resisted by her husband which, however, proved futile and she succeeded with a favourable order of maintenance. The recalcitrant husband went into revision in the High Court to establish that he was not liable to pay maintenance for the wife and the child, but his approach was scoffed at and rejected. The divorce suit instituted by him was another attempt to get rid of her and the baby on the sole ground of cruelty which bounced back with counter allegation of cruelty against her and finally the suit came to be dismissed. The divorce suit instituted by him was another attempt to get rid of her and the baby on the sole ground of cruelty which bounced back with counter allegation of cruelty against her and finally the suit came to be dismissed. According to DWs 2 and 3, after the marriage they proposed for the 'Dwiragaman' within ten days, but they were told by the parents of the appellant that it would be difficult to perform the ceremony within ten days as the appellant would go to Kolkata in connection with his business. They were assured that immediately after the return of the appellant, information would be given about the date of the ceremony to be performed. But the same did never happen and, therefore, non-performance of the 'Dwiragaman' could not be attributed to the parents of the respondent. 10. Learned trial Court after careful appreciation of the evidence on record came to hold that the behaviour of the respondent as alleged by the appellant cannot be said to be cruel justifying dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. It is the appellant himself to be blamed if after noticing deformity in physical appearance of the respondent he decided to marry her. He had a clear encounter before the marriage with her and if he had to surrender to the pressure of her relatives, they cannot be blamed for the same. The appellant married the respondent with a sniffy mind and started to discover defects in her appearance and behaviour with jaundiced eyes. According to the appellant, she used to sing Hindi cinema songs, take long time in the bath room and talk over telephone to the persons not known to him. He found in her look deformity tumour on her head, pustule on her face and offensive smell from her mouth. Admittedly, he did not do anything for treatment of her diseases, if there was any. It seems by not taking care of her, the cruelty came from his side not from the respondent. The very beginning of the marital life was, thus, made melancholy because of the hostile approach of the appellant generating thereby unhappiness. Admittedly, he did not do anything for treatment of her diseases, if there was any. It seems by not taking care of her, the cruelty came from his side not from the respondent. The very beginning of the marital life was, thus, made melancholy because of the hostile approach of the appellant generating thereby unhappiness. Dealing in details with the above circumstances in order to determine whether and to what extent the allegations against the wife are true or whether the same, if true, amount to cruelty, the learned trial Court came to hold that as both the parties came from middle class families their status, education and upbringing are important and relevant factors. Considered from that premises, the behaviour of the respondent, as alleged, does not amount to cruelty justifying dissolution of the marriage. 11. Independent of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court, we have carefully gone into the facts pleaded and the evidence adduced in order to see whether the marriage between them deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce. We have made attempts for reconciliation when it became evident that the respondent-wife was very much eager and willing to re-start the conjugal life, which she was deprived of for a long time. She was more anxious about the care and future of the child whose paternity was unreasonably brought under suspicion by the appellant himself. A divorce, according to her, would deal a severe blow not only to her but also to the child who is gradually growing up and deserves both paternal and maternal care. But the appellant-husband is so stubborn that he is not willing to give the marital relation another chance to establish peace and harmony. Because of his strong reluctance all our attempts for reconciliation proved abortive. We have, however, taken into consideration all the grievances of the appellant-husband beginning from the day when the first encounter had taken place before the marriage and all his allegations about non-performance of 'Dwiragaman' ceremony after the marriage. With his mind loaded with adverse feelings against the bride and the in-laws, he entered into the marital tie and started to discover fault after fault in every activity and movement of the respondent and her parents. With his mind loaded with adverse feelings against the bride and the in-laws, he entered into the marital tie and started to discover fault after fault in every activity and movement of the respondent and her parents. It may be noted here, according to the appellant, that he wanted to know how he would be treated if the 'Dwiragaman' was performed and the reply from his father-in-law was that the invitees to the ceremony would be given first preference while the bridegroom and his companies would enjoy a second preference. This reply from his father-in-law had annoyed him so much so that he refused to visit his in-laws for the purpose of 'Dwiragaman' ceremony. This statement from him shows that he is a man of strong ego and the story about the reply purportedly given by his father-in-law does not appear to us at all believable. The facts pleaded by him are so inconsistent that it would be difficult for a prudent person to believe that the respondent-wife was guilty of cruelty because of her behaviour pleaded since after the marriage. Though he complained of several physical diseases and deformities of the respondent, it is not in dispute that he had sexual relation with her during the short spell of 3 months 11 days and there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondent that she became pregnant due to the cohabitation with her husband. In our view, the allegations of singing Hindi cinema song, spending long time in the bath room, talking over telephone to somebody not known to the appellant, having pustule on her face and tumour on her head and offensive smell from her mouth, even if true, do not at all constitute cruelty to be a ground for dissolution of marriage. It is the appellant himself who was cruel by not sharing her troubles and caring for her if she was found by him suffering from any such disease as alleged which has been Stoutly denied by the respondent. We have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the appellant has totally failed to substantiate the allegations advanced by him against his wife and even if the allegations stood substantiated, the same do not amount to cruelty for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. We have no hesitation in our mind to hold that the appellant has totally failed to substantiate the allegations advanced by him against his wife and even if the allegations stood substantiated, the same do not amount to cruelty for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. Under the circumstances, we find the judgment impugned on terra firma and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference from this Court. 12. For the reasons aforestated, this appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Appeal dismissed.