Judgment :- Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. This is an appeal against judgment and decree dated November 16, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Durgapur, district: Burdwan in Matrimonial Suit no. 10 of 2004/192 of 2003. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned trial judge dismissed the said suit filed by the husband without, however, any order as to costs. The husband, who is the appellant before this Court, instituted the said matrimonial suit for divorce on September 20, 2003. The marriage of the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on January 21, 1992. The husband alleged that the wife treated him with cruelty and because of such cruel behaviour of his wife, the husband became a neurotic patient. From the very beginning of the marriage the husband and the members of his family noticed that the wife was ill-tempered and was in the habit of picking up quarrels in respect of petty matters. She abused the husband and other members of the family with harsh and provocative languages damaging the peace and tranquility of the family. She threatened that she would commit suicide and embroil the members of the family of the husband. She was not interested to attend any household chorus. The husband was compelled to attend his office without food. However, with the birth of the daughter, there was change in the behavioural pattern of the wife. But, unfortunately, after one and half year, the wife again started misbehaving with the parents-in-law and the husband. The grandparents were not allowed to interact with their granddaughter. The mother of the husband was a service holder in a hospital. She raised questions regarding character of the mother of the husband. The parents of the husband were insulted when they came to see their son, daughter-in-law and the granddaughter. While the parties were residing at Santipath, Durgapur, they were asked not to come there. The father of the husband was beaten and pushed by the wife. On April 23, 2003 she gave a written undertaking that she would obey her parents-in-law and her husband and, also, admitted her wrongful acts. The wife treated the husband with cruelty encroaching the minimum comfort in his life and, thus, the husband was suffering from mental agony. The wife contested the suit by filing a written statement. She had denied all the allegations made in the plaint. The wife treated the husband with cruelty encroaching the minimum comfort in his life and, thus, the husband was suffering from mental agony. The wife contested the suit by filing a written statement. She had denied all the allegations made in the plaint. It was stated that the husband was rude and cruel. On December 14, 2003, the husband assaulted the wife mercilessly by fist and blows and, thereafter, drove her out from her matrimonial house. The husband never looked after the wife and the minor child. It is an admitted position that the wife initiated a proceeding against the husband and her in-laws under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, but the husband and the in-laws were acquitted on May 7, 2010. A copy of decision dated May 7, 2010 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Durgapur, district Burdwan, is filed with the application for bringing on records subsequent events. It is, also, admitted that the parties are living separately from August 2003. The learned trial judge, by the impugned judgment and decree, dismissed the said suit holding, inter alia, that there were trouble, quarrel and unrest in the family centering round the wife, but it was not wholly true that the wife was alone the root of all evils. She might have some contribution towards such disharmony, but it should not be reckoned as unilateral cruelty inflicted by her upon her husband. Mere incompatibility of temperament could not be regarded as cruelty. Being aggrieved, the husband has come up with this appeal before this Court. The plaintiff witness no. 1 is the husband himself. In the evidence he reiterated her allegations and stated that the wife initiated a criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. He stated that the wife was residing with the daughter in the quarter provided by the employer of his mother and he had to shift to the quarter of his father. He stated that after 2003 there was no relationship between them. The plaintiff witness no. 2 was one Shrimati Srabani Das. She was a neighbour. She stated that the wife used to create trouble in her family. She talked rudely with her husband. She was invited with her son to celebrate the fifth birth anniversary of the daughter of the parties. The plaintiff witness no. 2 was one Shrimati Srabani Das. She was a neighbour. She stated that the wife used to create trouble in her family. She talked rudely with her husband. She was invited with her son to celebrate the fifth birth anniversary of the daughter of the parties. She went to the house of the parties. There were some other invitees also. The parents of the husband were, also, present. She found that the wife was behaving rudely with her parents-in-law. She asked them to get out and, also, told them not to come again to their home. Still, the parents of the husband continued to stay up to the end of the function, but the wife did not attend them. The plaintiff witness no. 3, Jahar Roy, was a businessman and was a neighbour. He stated that there were quarrels between the husband and wife, but he could not say who used to initiate the same. The plaintiff witness no. 4 was a police constable. He came and proved the diaries lodged by the husband before the police. The plaintiff witness no. 5 was the father of the husband. He stated that his daughter-in-law used to inflict torture upon his son. She used to threaten to commit suicide. She did not attend her household chorus. He reiterated that on the fifth birth anniversary of the granddaughter, he and his wife were asked by his daughter-in-law to get out of the house and not to come again. However, he stated that he continued to stay there with his wife for some time because of persuasion by his son. The wife deposed as defendant witness no. 1. She denied all the allegations. However, she admitted that she filed a criminal case against her husband and her parents-in-law. She admitted that after about 2 years of the birth of the daughter, they were residing separately. She admitted that there was a settlement in writing between the parties before filing of this case. She stated that she initiated the proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code after she received the summons of the suit. She was an Honours Graduate with Bachelor of Education degree. She could not remember whether she has alleged in her written statement that the husband was a drunker and addicted to woman. She, however, admitted her signature the settlement. The defendant witness no. She was an Honours Graduate with Bachelor of Education degree. She could not remember whether she has alleged in her written statement that the husband was a drunker and addicted to woman. She, however, admitted her signature the settlement. The defendant witness no. 2 was one Susmita Chatterjee. She was a neighbour. She stated that she heard sound of quarrel and cry of Mousumi from their quarter now and then. She found that one day in the noon hours the husband drove the wife forcibly out of their home after holding tuft of her hair. She admitted that there was a settlement between the husband and wife and she was present during such settlement. The witness no. 3 for the defendant was one Dulal Ghosh. He was the husband of the sister of the wife. He admitted that a settlement was arrived at between the parties, but suggested that such document was prepared by the husband in order to pacify his father. However, his evidence was expunged by order no. 78 dated August 31, 2006 as he did not offer himself for his cross-examination. Exhibit 2 is a document dated April 23, 2003. In such document, the wife stated that she had inflicted mental cruelty on her husband and the members of his family. She prayed for mercy and undertook not to disobey them and not to utter any insulting word to them. The document was signed by the wife and her brother-in7 law, Dulal Ghosh, was a witness to the said document. The document has been marked as exhibit 2. There is another settlement dated August 6, 2003. This is signed by the husband and the wife and some local people were the witnesses. It was recorded that the parties had decided, in presence of the neighbours, to stay separately. The document has been marked as exhibit 2/1. Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously argued that the wife treated the husband and the members of his family with cruelty and, therefore, the learned judge erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in refusing to pass a decree for divorce. Mr. Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, strenuously argued that the wife treated the husband and the members of his family with cruelty and, therefore, the learned judge erred in law and in the facts and circumstances of the case in refusing to pass a decree for divorce. Mr. Bhattacharya cited the decisions in the cases of Shrimati Nivedita Banerjee versus Sanat Kumar Banerjee reported in 1999 (2) CHN 625 , Shrimati Kajal Roy versus Prasanta Kumar Roy reported in (2005) 2 CLT (HC) 567, Soma Banerjee versus Subhrojyoti Banerjee reported in 2009 (3) CHN 637 and Naveen Kohli versus Neelu Kohli reported in (2006) 4 SCC 558 . Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty, learned advocate for the wife, on the contrary, strenuously argued that the evidence of the husband on the allegation of cruelty was not reliable. No relation of the husband had come to corroborate the allegations. He drew our attention to the evidence of the brother-in-law of the wife to establish that the husband assaulted his wife and she was treated in hospital. Mr. Chakraborty cited the following cases in order to substantiate his submission that the husband has failed to reach the standard of proof required for obtaining a decree for divorce against the wife on the ground of cruelty: 1. Piyasa Ghosh versus Somnath Ghosh reported in AIR 2009 Calcutta 90, 2. Vishnu Dutt Sharma versus Manju Sharma reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2254, 3. Om Parkash versus shrimati Rajni reported in AIR 1988 Delhi 107, 4. Sri Tapan Chakraborty versus Shrimati Anjali Chakraborty reported in AIR 1993 Calcutta 10, 5. Shrimati Sulekha Bairagi versus Prof. Kamala Kanta Bairagi and another reported in AIR 1980 Calcutta 370. There is no quarrel to the proposition that initiation of the criminal case by the wife would not automatically lead to passing of a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. There is, also, no denial that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is no ground for divorce. The demand for a separate residence because of hassles in the family is not a cruelty entitling the husband to obtain a decree for divorce. There is, also, no denial that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is no ground for divorce. The demand for a separate residence because of hassles in the family is not a cruelty entitling the husband to obtain a decree for divorce. No decree for divorce could be granted on the ground of ordinary quarrels, that is to say, the cruelty simpliciter is not enough, and the husband is to prove that the cruelty is of a nature as to give rise to a reasonable appreciation in his mind that it will be harmful for him to live with his wife. Admittedly, on the complaint of the wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, not only the husband but, also, his parents were implicated and charge-sheeted. The husband and his father were arrested. On trial, all the accused persons were acquitted as the Criminal Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution. The husband is an employee of Durgapur Steel Plant. The wife, in our opinion, had no intention of living with the husband as would appear from the facts and circumstances of the case that knowing fully well that her husband would lose his job for the step she was going to take, she deliberately made the wild allegations against the husband and the parents-in-law. Inference can be drawn that the wife had no intention to go back to the husband and her intention was to terminate the matrimonial relationship. The cases cited by Mr. Chakraborty are distinguishable inasmuch as in most of the cases proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code were initiated prior to filing of the suit for divorce. From the materials-on-record, it appears that from the inception, the wife was rude and cruel not only to the husband, but, also, to his parents. The husband was an employee of Durgapur Steel Plant and he was a neurotic patient. Under medical advice, excitements were to be avoided, but the wife continued to use filthy and abusive languages causing excitements to the petitioner, which was injurious for his health. However, the wife changed her attitude on the birth of the child born in their wedlock. After a gap of about one and half years, she has again started abusing the husband and his parents. She was arrogant. She refused to attend the household chorus. However, the wife changed her attitude on the birth of the child born in their wedlock. After a gap of about one and half years, she has again started abusing the husband and his parents. She was arrogant. She refused to attend the household chorus. She even cursed the husband and expressed her desire to get an employment in the office of the husband on his death. On February 13, 2002, when the parents of the husband came to attend the birthday of the only child of the parties, they were insulted and driven away. The mother of the husband died on February 20, 2003 in Durgapur hospital. The wife, as the daughter in law, had obligation to attend her in the hospital, but unfortunately, she did not attend her. The mother of the petitioner was a staff nurse in the Durgapur hospital. The wife used to make baseless allegations touching the character of the mother saying that the ladies working in the hospital are bad of character. There was intervention by the relations of the wife including the said Dulal Ghosh. In presence of the said Dulal Ghosh, she gave a written undertaking that she would mend her ways. There was no change in the mind of the wife. Therefore, impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial judge are set aside. The matrimonial suit is decreed on contest. The marriage tie between the parties is dissolved by a decree of divorce. However, custody of the child would remain with the mother till the minor attains majority. However, the father shall be entitled to have reasonable access to his daughter. Appeal is, thus, allowed. In view of the disposal of the appeal, connected applications are, also, disposed of. Before we part with, we record that we had attempted for a settlement between the parties, but, unfortunately, settlement could not be arrived at. We, however, direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this appeal.