Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1). This first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a proceeding for divorce and is directed against the decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta dated 9th November, 2004 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 398 of 1993 thereby passing a decree for divorce not only on the ground of cruelty but also on the ground that the wife was suffering from mental disorder. (2). Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present first appeal. The respondent/husband filed a suit being Matrimonial Suit No.48 of 1990 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta under Section 13(1)(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the present appellant/wife on the ground of cruelty and mental disorder of the wife. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Principal Family Court, Calcutta and was renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No.398 of 1995. (3). The case made out by the husband in the application for divorce may be summed up thus: a) The parties were married on 11th August, 1986 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at the fathers house of the wife at 31/1C, Beadon Row within the jurisdiction of the Court. After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife at the residence of the husband at P 42, Dr. A.K. Pal Road Extension, Calcutta700034 where the marriage between the parties was consummated and on 7th August, 1987 a female child was born in the wedlock of the parties. b) At the time of marriage, the husband was living with his old ailing widowed mother, one unmarried sister and one unmarried elder brother at the aforesaid residence. c) From the very beginning, the wifes conduct and behaviour was found disappointing and apathetic towards the husband and others members of his family and without any cogent reason, she often became excited on trifle matters; she quarrelled and abused the husband and his near relatives in filthy, slang and abusive language shouting at the top of her voice and going outside the house thereby drawing attention of outsiders and putting the husband and the members of his family in utter embarrassment and humiliation. d) The wife was not willing to do the formal household work or to discharge her normal duties as a housewife. d) The wife was not willing to do the formal household work or to discharge her normal duties as a housewife. She did not take care of her husband, her old ailing mother-in-law and the elder brother-in-law nor had she any regard for them. All the persuasions and requests by the husband to the wife to do household duties and to discharge her obligations as a modest housewife would only result in insult, disrespect and abuse in slang and vulgar languages from the wife. Any slightest or mild protest on the part of the husband invariably excited the wife and she started shouting and this became a regular feature during the stay of the wife at the residence of her husband. e) The conduct and demeanour of the wife during her stay at the husbands house was gradually found to be absolutely abnormal and unnatural as would appear from the following amongst other relevant facts and circumstances, chronologically set out below: i) On 3rd February, 1987 on the occasion of the Swaraswati Puja, several friends and relatives of the husband came to his house. The husband requested the wife to attend and meet the guests as a usual courtesy. The wife not only refused to meet the guests and visitors or to entertain them but also ultimately became so violent that she abused the husband in dirty languages in the presence of the guests and complained that her father had not sent her to the matrimonial home for doing the work of a maidservant. The husband requested the wife with folded hands to keep silent but in vain. ii) During her stay in matrimonial home, the wife very often picked up quarrel with the husbands unmarried sister and abused her by describing her as a daughter of a prostitute. When the husband rebuked the wife for such ugly utterance, the wife abused him and did not even spare to comment against husbands mother or unmarried elder brother, who held responsible post in a nationalised bank for which the husband had to think of living in separate mess. iii) Due to abnormal behaviour of the wife towards her husband, the mother-in-law and the members of the family and others, grave doubts arose in the mind of the husband as regards her mental soundness and stability. iii) Due to abnormal behaviour of the wife towards her husband, the mother-in-law and the members of the family and others, grave doubts arose in the mind of the husband as regards her mental soundness and stability. In his anxiety, the husband narrated everything to his mother-in-law in the early part of 1987 expressing his apprehension as regards mental disorder of the respondent when the wifes mother assured the husband by saying that in course of pregnancy such type of trouble might arise and the same was temporary, for which the husband should not worry. She further assured that after the delivery of the child, the temporary phase of abnormal behaviour would disappear. iv) On 26th July, 1989, the husbands mother became seriously ill. Incidentally, on that day the wife had to go her paternal house. Considering the illness of the mother of the husband, he requested the wife to come back the very next day. The next day when the wife did not come back, the husband went to the respondents fathers house to bring her back as his mother was very ill. At first, the wife agreed to come back, but soon thereafter, she changed her mind and refused to return to her matrimonial home and insulted the husband by using slang and abusive language in the presence of her mother. v) On 7th August, 1987 the wife had given birth to a female child and stayed at her fathers house up to 25th September, 1987. On 26th September, 1987 the wife along with her child was brought to the matrimonial home. It was then expected that after the birth of the child, the behaviour of the wife would change. But to the utter disappointment of the husband, it was found that the wifes behaviour towards the husband, her mother-in-law and others became more rude, rough and abnormal. vi) For want of sufficient accommodation in the husbands family after the delivery of the child, the husband had to sleep for a few days in another room. At that time, the wife became was so cruel that she would not even allow the husband to have access to the child. One night, while the husband had to accompany a neighbour to hospital, the husband knocked the door of her bedroom which was bolted from inside, to fetch his dresses. At that time, the wife became was so cruel that she would not even allow the husband to have access to the child. One night, while the husband had to accompany a neighbour to hospital, the husband knocked the door of her bedroom which was bolted from inside, to fetch his dresses. The respondent at first refused to open the door and when she opened, she abused the husband in filthy languages loudly within the hearing of the neighbours. vii) On 3rd November, 1987 the wifes mother and sister paid a visit to the house of the husband. In their presence, the wife shouted loudly abusing the husband and his mother and sister using filthy languages. Being very much ashamed and embarrassed, the wifes mother and sister immediately left the house of the husband and subsequently, on 4th November, 1987 the wife left the house with the child. viii) During the period between November, 1987 and February, 1988, the wife was with her mother at her paternal house and kept no contact with the husband nor did she inform anything about herself or the child. Observing the aforesaid behaviour, the husband again approached his mother-in-law and requested her to consult a psychiatrist for examining the respondent and to consider the husbands suggestion. There was a meeting at the residence of a common well-wisher where the respondent, her mother, sister, brother, sisters husband and the husband, his elder brother, mother and common friends were present. In the said meeting, it was decided that a psychiatrist would be consulted and accordingly, the wife was examined by Dr. A.K. Mullick, a psychiatrist and the said doctor suggested a marital therapy for the respondent. But for the reasons best known to the wife and the member of her family, she refused to appear for marital therapy and the proposed treatment could not be continued. f) The husband, an employee of the United Bank of India, was transferred in the month of September, 1988 to Gopiballavpur Branch of the said Bank in the District of Midnapore and he joined his duty on 18th January, 1989. Prior to his transfer, the husband had shifted his residence from P 42, DR. A.K. Paul Road to P 48, Dakshin Behala Road, Calcutta with the members of his family. Prior to his transfer, the husband had shifted his residence from P 42, DR. A.K. Paul Road to P 48, Dakshin Behala Road, Calcutta with the members of his family. On 1st May, 1989 the wifes brother and relatives brought the wife to the husbands said Calcutta residence and keeping her there, they left the husbands house to avoid responsibility to treat the wife as suggested. Coming back to her matrimonial home, the wife as usual started quarrelling, shouting and abusing and making it impossible for the members of the husbands family to bear her cruelty and misbehaviour. g) To avoid bitterness, the husband came to Calcutta and took the respondent to his residence at Midnapore which was near to his place of work at Gopiballavpur with the expectation that a change of place might have some good effect on the mental condition of the respondent. But the behaviour of the wife became crueler and was found to be depressed and dejected all the time showing signs of frustration and mentally upset. h) Being apprehensive about the mental condition of the wife, the husband brought her to Calcutta for immediate treatment. She was then found to be absolutely indifferent to the child and was physically and mentally incapable of looking after the child. As a precautionary measure, the husband put up the wife at his paternal aunts house near Hati Bagan, Calcutta for the treatment of the wife. On 1st September, 1989 the husband contacted Dr. Gobinda Sen, a psychiatrist, who examined the wife and prescribed certain medicines and advised a psycho diagnosis test of the wife. Dr. Sen asked the husband to report about the health of the wife after the suggested medical test was done, a month thereafter. Soon after the examination by Dr. Sen, the wife refused to undergo the suggested medical test as advised by the doctor. i) Thereafter, the husband had to leave Calcutta to join his duty at Midnapore. He took with him the wife leaving the child with his mother at Calcutta. In Midnapore, the wife at the request of the husband regularly consumed the medicine prescribed by Dr. Sen and a noticeable change and improvement was seen in the behaviour of the wife. To report about the heath of the wife to Dr. Sen, the husband came back with the wife for her treatment and again put up at his aunts house. Sen and a noticeable change and improvement was seen in the behaviour of the wife. To report about the heath of the wife to Dr. Sen, the husband came back with the wife for her treatment and again put up at his aunts house. After coming to Calcutta, the wife contacted her mother and relatives and refused to take medicine or to have her examined by the doctor. After passing of puja vacation, the husband along with the wife had to leave for Midnapore to join his duty. j) During her stay at Midnapore, this time the mental condition of the wife deteriorated and her behaviour towards husband became intolerable. She never cooked for the husband and almost daily, the husband had to go to office without taking meal. On one occasion, the wife in course of conversation with the husband became furious and attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her body. The husband somehow managed to save the wife and the situation. k) On 27th October, 1989, while the husband was in his office the wife tried to commit suicide by taking several pills. She became seriously ill and the husband somehow averted the crisis and avoided a police investigation in the matter. l) Considering the alarming turn of the situation from bad to worse, husband immediately sent words to the wifes mother, brother and other relatives who came to Midnapore on 30th October, 1998. In their presence, and in the presence of some local respectable people, a joint sitting was held and it was decided that the wife would be brought to Calcutta for treatment. m) On 5th November, 1989, the husband along with wife came down to Calcutta to join his training course as well as for the medical treatment of the wife, and she was kept at the husbands aunts house. This time as per advice of Dr. Govinda Sen, the husband did psycho diagnosis test of the wife at Bodhodaya. n) In order to get a second opinion in the matter, the husband on 22nd November, 1989 contacted Dr. Subir Bal, a renowned psychiatrist and consulted with him with reference to the said medical report. Dr. Bal also examined the wife and in his prescription advised for admission of the respondent in a mental home. n) In order to get a second opinion in the matter, the husband on 22nd November, 1989 contacted Dr. Subir Bal, a renowned psychiatrist and consulted with him with reference to the said medical report. Dr. Bal also examined the wife and in his prescription advised for admission of the respondent in a mental home. o) In the night on 22nd November, 1989, without the knowledge, information and consent of inmates of the husbands aunts house, the wife abruptly left the house for her fathers house at Beadon Row, Calcutta, and since then she had been living there. She had refused to come to the husbands house. From the aforesaid fact it was apparent that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder including psychotic disturbances, schizophrenic in nature along with certain amount of depression. The wife was mentally and physically incapable of taking care of or looking after the child. Hence the suit for divorce. (4). The suit was contested by the wife by filing written statement as well as additional written statement and thereby denying the material allegations made in the application for divorce and her defence may be summed up thus: a) During her stay in her matrimonial home, the wife was subjected to both physical and mental torture by the widowed mother-in-law, unmarried sister-in-law and unmarried elder brother-n-law on the plea that the wifes relative did not fulfil the demand made by the husband during their marriage. Moreover the elder brother of the husband did not like that the husband should get married and expected that his brother should remain unmarried like him. The wife swallowed all insinuations, insult as well as mental torture made by the husband and his family-members and did not divulge the same to her relatives as the same would be shocking to them as the marriage was solemnised just after the death of the wifes father. b) Soon after the marriage, the wife was asked by the husband as well as his family members to prepare meals of all the family members within 8 A.M. in the morning and she was compelled to carry and/or lift bucket of water for the purpose of cooking meal. Moreover, the wife was forced to clean and wash heaps of garments of the family members of the husband everyday as soon as the meal was cooked in the morning. Moreover, the wife was forced to clean and wash heaps of garments of the family members of the husband everyday as soon as the meal was cooked in the morning. The wife became pregnant within a month from the date of solemnisation of the marriage and various complications developed with the advancement of pregnancy. The husband as well as his family-members knowing fully well that the respondent was in her family way and had developed several complications compelled her to carry on cooking meals by 8 A.M. in the morning and thereafter, the cleaning and washing the heaps of the garments of the family-members of the husband by lifting water which was prohibited by the attending doctor. The wife was never provided with sufficient food when she felt hungry during her advanced stage of pregnancy and had to spend sleepless nights without fan during extreme summer period in April, May and June, 1987 as the husband deliberately removed the carbon and other component points of the ceiling fan in order to make it inoperative. c) The wife was very much perturbed due to the husbands attitude and rough behaviour towards her and the husband was persuaded or provoked by his mother, elder brother and unmarried sister to adopt such rough and unkind behaviour towards the wife while she was carrying. Due to the persistent torture and cruelty meted out to the wife as aforesaid by the husband in collusion with his family members, the wife became mentally disturbed and the husband was responsible for such state of affairs. d) The so-called abnormal behaviour and mental disorder as stated in the application for divorce were nothing but wishful thinking of the husband; however, the respondent was really mentally upset by the behaviour of the husband from the very beginning of their marriage. The husband forced the wife to travel in buses from Behala to Beadon Row in her advanced stage of pregnancy carrying ten months to attend Swadh Ceremony in her fathers house on the plea of mothers illness. e) The wife joined her matrimonial home with high hopes that after the birth of a baby the attitude of the husband as well as his family members toward her might be changed. But to the utter disappointment, it was found that the husbands behaviour towards the wife had become more rough and rude. e) The wife joined her matrimonial home with high hopes that after the birth of a baby the attitude of the husband as well as his family members toward her might be changed. But to the utter disappointment, it was found that the husbands behaviour towards the wife had become more rough and rude. The husband started living in a separate room with his mother and did not look after the well being of the wife as well as her newborn baby. Even in the midnight, the husband used to knock the door of the wife on the plea of taking out his personal belongings and thereby caused disturbance to the wife and the newly born baby. f) The wife came back to Calcutta with the husband from Midnapore only because the rented house in Midnapore where the wife was forced to live along with her minor child was unfit for human habitation and there was no provision for water supply and electric connection in the said house. The wife was subjected to physical as well as mental torture by the husband to such an extent that the wife in one occasion attempted to commit suicide there. It was denied that she was mentally and physically incapable in looking after her minor chile or that she was mentally misbalanced as alleged or at all. g) The husband in order to prove that the wife was suffering from mental disorder contacted Dr. Gobinda Sen who examined the respondent and prescribed some medicines and the said doctor did not find any wrong with the mental condition of the wife. h) After taking the wife to Gopiballavpur, the husband started assaulting the wife in various ways. One day in the month of September, 1989 the husband forced the wife to swallow some pills supplied by the husband but as she refused to swallow such type of unknown and unnamed medicine without first consulting a doctor, the husband throttled her tightly and on pain of death compelled to swallow those tablets. i) During the pendency of the suit, the husband started having cohabitation and forcibly committing sexual intercourse with the wife for the last three years almost on every Saturday whenever he found that the wife visited Sarisa Ram Krishna Mission Ashram to meet her daughter. (5). i) During the pendency of the suit, the husband started having cohabitation and forcibly committing sexual intercourse with the wife for the last three years almost on every Saturday whenever he found that the wife visited Sarisa Ram Krishna Mission Ashram to meet her daughter. (5). The husband used to go there almost on every Saturday and forcibly dragged her in a segregated room of the school building and forced her to submit to such type of sexual intercourse against the threat that if she refused to such sexual intercourse, he would stop giving her maintenance amount, and if she agreed, in that case, he would take her back in her matrimonial home. The suit was, thus, liable to be dismissed. (6). At the time of hearing of the suit, the husband and his elder brother alone gave evidence in support of the petition for divorce while the elder brother of the wife, her eldest brother-in-law and she, herself, figured as the witnesses in opposing the claim. (7). As pointed out earlier, the learned Family Court by the judgment and decree impugned herein had decreed the suit on both the grounds, i.e. cruelty and mental disorder of the wife. Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present appeal. (8). Mr. Basu, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, at the very outset, drawn our attention to the report given by the Medical Board appointed by the learned Family Court which suggested that the wife was quite normal and had no mental disorder. Mr. Basu contends that the learned Family Court totally overlooked the said report given by the Medical Board constituted by the Family Court itself and if such material was considered, the conclusion of the Family Court regarding the mental condition of the wife would have been otherwise. Mr. Basu points out that even the husband did not file any application for cross-examination of the doctors of the Medical Board who gave such report. Mr. Basu further contends that in this case it is well established that the main grievance of the husband that the wife was suffering from mental disorder was proved to be false and apart from the said allegation, the other ground of cruelty has not been established through any independent witness. Mr. Mr. Basu further contends that in this case it is well established that the main grievance of the husband that the wife was suffering from mental disorder was proved to be false and apart from the said allegation, the other ground of cruelty has not been established through any independent witness. Mr. Basu contends that his client has specifically asserted that it was the sister of the husband who used to create trouble in the matrimonial home and that was the cause of disturbance but in spite of such allegation, the husband decided not to examine his sister. Mr. Basu further contends that no specific incidence of mental cruelty has been pointed out by the husband by giving any cogent evidence. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the decree passed by the Family Court. (9). Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the husband fairly conceded that in view of the existence of the report of the Medical Board which was not disputed by his client, he would not press the ground of mental disorder and will restrict his submission only on the question of cruelty. Mr. Chatterjee contends that in this case, from the evidence of his client and his elder brother, the cruelty on the part of the wife has been proved and that it is a fit case for grant of divorce on that ground apart from the ground of mental disorder of the wife. According to Mr. Chatterjee, the wife, in the written statement having made specific allegations of misbehaviour of the mother-in-law but in evidence having admitted that her mother-in-law never misbehaved with her, it was the duty of the learned Trial Judge to grant divorce only on the ground of making such baseless allegation against the mother of the husband which itself constituted cruelty. (10). In support of such contention, Mr. Chatterjee relies upon a Division Bench of this Court in the case Debabrata Chakraborty vs. Rina Chakraborty reported in 2009(1) CHN 893 . Mr. Chatterjee further submits that the ingredients of cruelty have been well established in this case and in support of such contention he also relies upon the following two decisions of the Supreme Court: 1) Parveen Mehta vs. Inderjeet Mehta reported in AIR 2002 SC 2582 ; 2) A. Jayachandra vs. Anil Kaur reported in AIR 2005 SC 534 = 2005 (2) SCC 22 . (11). Mr. (11). Mr. Chatterjee, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal and for maintaining the decree for divorce at least on the ground of cruelty. Although Mr. Chatterjee did not press the ground of mental disorder of the wife as alleged in the petition for divorce, since the suit was decreed on such ground and the allegation of mental disorder was the foundation of the suit, we propose to deal with the same as the said ground has also some link with the ground of cruelty, the other ground of divorce proved in the Family Court. (12). In order to appreciate the question, it will appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 13(1) (iii) of the Act which is quoted below: (13). Divorce.(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party [(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Explanation. In this clause, (a) the expression mental disorder means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia; (b) the expression psychopathic disorder means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; (14). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we find that the wife is a science graduate and used to work as a Demonstrator in the City College, Calcutta on temporary basis and she did not continue with the job after the marriage. It is her specific case that immediately after the marriage, she became pregnant and in spite of such fact, in her matrimonial home, she was required to cook food so that her brother-in-law (unmarried) could leave for his office by 8-30 in the morning. It is her specific case that immediately after the marriage, she became pregnant and in spite of such fact, in her matrimonial home, she was required to cook food so that her brother-in-law (unmarried) could leave for his office by 8-30 in the morning. She complained that immediately after the cooking was over, she was obliged to wash the clothes of all the members of the family including those of her mother-in-law although her younger sister-in-law and mother-in-law did not take any such responsibility. (15). She has further stated that in her early stage of pregnancy, some complications started but in spite of such fact, she was not relieved of her onerous duties. It appears from the evidence on record that the members of the family of the husband did not feel that at the early stage of pregnancy as the wife was not keeping well, it was improper on their part to put the entire burden of cooking and washing upon her without sharing those among themselves. Neither the mother-in-law nor the sister-in-law of the appellant has come forward to deny that the appellant was entrusted with those duties. It further appears that the sister-in-law of the appellant misbehaved with her without assisting her in the household work and such fact became a source of dissatisfaction in the mind of the appellant and she did not get the sympathy of her husband in this regard resulting in the metal upset of the appellant. As it appears from the report of the Medical Board appointed by the Family Court, she was not at all a patient of mental disorder but it is the cruel and unsympathetic behaviour on the part of the members of her husbands family that made her mentally ill which did not of course reach the stage of mental disorder within the meaning of the Act. Once, the cruel behaviour of the husband and the members of his family reached such a point that she thought of committing suicide. The position did not change when she went to Gopiballavpur. The husband arranged for an accommodation where there were not even the facilities of electricity and water and at the same time, the daughter was separated from her. The position did not change when she went to Gopiballavpur. The husband arranged for an accommodation where there were not even the facilities of electricity and water and at the same time, the daughter was separated from her. It is apparent from the materials on record that the husband and the members of her family tried to get rid of the appellant by branding her as a patient of mental disorder and started treatment of that disease by various doctors. None of those doctors has however been examined by the husband justifying the necessity of such treatment. If those doctors were examined, we could appreciate whether there was any necessity of her treatment of mental disorder. The brother-in-law of the appellant who is a doctor, however, has made it clear that the appellant was not at all a patient of mental disorder and such opinion has been reiterated by the Medical Board appointed by the Family Court. (16). We, thus, find that by making false allegation of mental abnormality of the appellant coupled with various cruel treatments, for instance, compelling the wife to remain without fan even in summer, compelling her do almost the entire household work of the family during her pregnancy etc. the husband has treated the wife with both physical and mental cruelty and thus, if for such inhuman treatment towards the appellant, she became mentally upset and tensed, the husband cannot avail of such condition of the wife as a tool to get a decree for divorce either on the ground of mental illness or cruelty. The case, at any rate, does not come within the purview of section 13 (1) (iii) of the Act. (17). As regards the ground of cruelty pleaded in the application for divorce, the best witness to such cruelty was the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law but none of them has come forward to depose. We have already pointed out that the members of the family of the husband had made the life of the wife miserable, as a result, there might be some retaliation on the part of the wife but if the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law with the tacit support of the husband inflicts cruelty upon the appellant, any counteract on the part of the wife cannot be blamed. A wife in her matrimonial home has the right to protest against the wrong done to her and such just protest cannot be viewed as imprudent behaviour of the wife. We now propose to deal with the point raised by Mr. Chatterjee as regards the alleged false allegations against her mother-in-law. (18). Mr. Chatterjee, by relying upon a single sentence from the deposition of the wife that her mother-in-law did not misbehave with her tried to impress upon us that by the said statement the innocence of her mother-in-law has been proved and thus, it should be held that the appellant made baseless allegation against her mother-in-law in the written statement and for such irresponsible statement, we should uphold the decree for divorce granted by the Family Court on the ground of cruelty. (19). We have gone through the entire deposition of the wife. It is true that in examination-in-chief, she stated that that the mother-in-law never misbehaved with her and it was the sister-in-law who used to inflict torture to the extreme point. She had clarified that even the mother-in-law did not protest when her daughter misbehaved with her. She has further stated that by her former statement she wanted to say that her sister-in-law went to the extreme point of torture and the others occasionally did. (20). In our opinion, even if we assume for the sake of argument, that in spite of the fact that her mother-in-law did not misbehave with her, she made false statement in the written statement making allegation of misbehaviour against her mother-in-law, such wrong statement against the mother-in-law cannot be a ground of divorce when the husband has failed to prove allegation made against the wife in the petition for divorce. (21). It is absurd to suggest that if the plaint allegation is found to be false, the case will simply fail but if the case made in the written statement is found to be wrong, that will enable the court to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiff notwithstanding the fact that the case made out in the plaint is not proved. We are conscious that if in a matrimonial suit, deliberate false statement is made against the moral character or reputation of the plaintiff or any member of the family of the plaintiff which is proved to be false from the materials on record of the suit, such proved fact of deliberate misstatement is taken to be a case of mental cruelty inflicted upon the plaintiff and a matrimonial court can grant decree for divorce on that ground. Therefore, in order to bring the baseless allegation in the written statement within the purview of mental cruelty, the proved false allegation must be of a grave nature which would by itself constitute cruelty. The allegation that a mother-in-law misbehaved with the daughter-in-law, even if is found to be false, is not that type of a grave allegation where it is found that the sister-in-law misbehaved with the appellant without just cause and the mother-in-law remained silent or where it is established that the entire burden of the cooking and washing of the members of the family is forced upon the newly married daughter-in-law who is then in her family way with the tacit consent of the mother-in-law. It was the duty of the mother-in-law in such circumstances to see that such heavy burden is not forced upon the daughter-in-law but is shared by all. Such arrangement with the sanction of the mother-in-law is nothing but a grave instance of misbehaviour with the daughter-in-law. (22). We, therefore, do not find any substance in the said contention of Mr. Chatterjee. The decisions referred to by Mr. Chatterjee on the aforesaid point are all dealing with the cases where baseless allegation of adultery or unfounded allegations of demand of dowry were made before the police against the other spouse. Therefore, those decisions do not support the respondent in anyway in the facts of the present case. (23). On consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that the learned Family Court totally overlooked the report of the medical board certifying the appellant to be absolutely normal. The court also overlooked that no objection to the said report was given and even no prayer was made for crossexamination of the doctors. (24). (23). On consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that the learned Family Court totally overlooked the report of the medical board certifying the appellant to be absolutely normal. The court also overlooked that no objection to the said report was given and even no prayer was made for crossexamination of the doctors. (24). Once it is established that the wife was not suffering from mental illness which will also be found to be false from the fact that she was a Demonstrator in a college prior to her marriage in science subject, we are left with no other alternative but to accept the case of the wife that the husband made false allegation of mental illness and forced her to go to various doctors dealing with the patients of mental disorder and on that false ground, her child was taken away from her and she was compelled to live without her child in Gopiballvpur by keeping the newly born child with her mother-in-law. We have also found that she was forced to stay in a rented house without electricity and bathroom with only the facility of a privy in that house although her husband was a bank employee with decent income. It has also been established that when she used to stay in her matrimonial home, the husband during summer used to stop the fan by removing the carbon. All these acts coupled with torture of sister-in-law were sufficient to make even a normal person mentally ill. We, therefore, hold that the husband has failed to prove the case made out in the plaint and he cannot take advantage of his own wrong. (25). Apart from the aforesaid fact, we find that in this case, the wife made amendment of written statement alleging that during the pendency of the suit for divorce, the husband sexually cohabited with her continuously for about three years and she also gave evidence to that effect by specifically alleging that the husband assured her to take back if she consented to cohabitation and consequently, she agreed. According to the wife, the husband continued cohabitation with her almost every week from the year 1998 to middle of the year 2000. According to the wife, the husband continued cohabitation with her almost every week from the year 1998 to middle of the year 2000. She has further stated in her evidence-in-chief that if she ever raised objection, the husband assured that if she allowed him to have sexual intercourse he would take her back to his home and live with her and if she did not agree, in that event, she would be driven away. According to the wife, out of fear, she did not raise any protest and had cohabitated with the husband during the aforesaid period. (26). Curiously, in spite of such allegation in the additional written statement, and evidence given by the wife by way of additional affidavit-in-chief, the husband did not lead any further evidence to controvert such allegation and in cross-examination to the wife, only a vague suggestion was given that the wife had made false allegation against the husband. (27). Although Mr. Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the husband, tried to impress upon us that it was impossible to have sexual intercourse in a school building, we find that the wife in cross-examination had stated that when the guardians of the other children were in other room she and her husband used to meet each other and such incidents occurred on Saturdays and Sundays. She has, in answer to the question put to her in crossexamination, further clarified that at the time of such sexual cohabitation, the daughter was not present. In the amended written statement, it was specifically stated that the parties had such sexual intercourse in a segregated room of Ramkrishna Mission Ashram where her daughter used to study. (28). The husband, however, in spite of such specific and detailed allegation made in the pleading, affidavit-in-chief and cross-examination, did not appear in the witness box to controvert such statement or to face cross-examination at the instance of the wife on the aforesaid incident. Even no specific suggestion was given to her denying those statements made by the wife. Only a vague suggestion was given that false allegations were made against the husband. (29). In view of such uncontroverted evidence of the wife, we find no reason to disbelieve such allegation as an absurd statement. The aforesaid proved incident is an additional ground for dismissal of the suit. (30). Only a vague suggestion was given that false allegations were made against the husband. (29). In view of such uncontroverted evidence of the wife, we find no reason to disbelieve such allegation as an absurd statement. The aforesaid proved incident is an additional ground for dismissal of the suit. (30). The judgement and decree passed by the Family Court are, thus, set aside. The suit for divorce is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.