Judgment : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. Amiya and Namita got married on August 8, 1997 after a prolonged courtship. The marriage was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 on August 29, 1997. There was class difference between the two families as alleged by Amiya in his plaint. According to Amiya, his in-laws were affluent. His father-in-law was in Government service. They were residing in three storeyed pukka building having all modern amenities at Bidhan Nagar, a posh locality in the town of Midnapur. His brother-in-law was a businessman. Namita was brought up since childhood in affluence and enjoyed ultra-modern life as claimed by Amiya in his plaint. Amiya had a humble background. They were residing in joint mess in a rented accommodation. He was medical representative and used to earn meagre amount. Soon after the marriage, couple initially started residing in the rented accommodation along with the family members. Namita was not happy. On her insistence Amiya had to shift from one to the other rented accommodation. The couple resided together for about three years when Namita insisted him to leave his parents and started residing as a domesticated son-in-law with her parents. She was expensive too. To meet her demand, Amiya had to sell his scooter to Namita’s brother at rupees three thousand. On November 24, 2000 Namita’s mother came to their place being rented accommodation under one Ranjit Mondal and took her to her parental home on the assurance that she would come back after Chirstmass. Amiya went to take her back on December 27, 2000 when he was insulted, misbehaved and manhandled. Namita was a graduate. She had sufficient bank balance. She had income from tuition. Despite her affluence, she filed maintenance case against Amiya to harass and hackle him. In June 2002, Amiya’s father died. Namita did not come to Amiya’s place to console him or observe rituals. Amiya was attacked with jaundice from February 16, 2005 to May 11, 2005. Namita was not by his side. She did not come to see him. On these allegations, Amio filed an application for dissolution of marriage, inter alia, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Namita entered appearance and contested the case by filing written statement. She denied each and every allegation. She contended, her father was a driver before his retirement. She also denied Amiya’s allegation, she did not do any household work. Namita entered appearance and contested the case by filing written statement. She denied each and every allegation. She contended, her father was a driver before his retirement. She also denied Amiya’s allegation, she did not do any household work. She, categorically, asserted that the marriage, was the outcome of the love affairs between the couple. Soon after the marriage she accompanied her husband and lived at the rental accommodation where she used to do all household work jointly with her mother-in-law. Although the marriage was an outcome of love affairs, her father gave gold ornaments, furniture and arranged a social get-together for the occasion. She alleged that Amiya was greedy and started putting pressure on her to bring money from her parents. She denied and, as a result, had to be subjected to torture. She fell down in the bathroom and sustained injury. Amiya did not arrange for her treatment. Hence, she was compelled to inform her father who took her for treatment. Amiya never cared to get any information about her, far to speak of providing cost of treatment. She was forced to file an application for maintenance. During cross-examination, the parties were consistent on their approach. Amiya tendered medical prescription pertaining to Namita’s treatment. He also produced document to say that they were on tour at Digha. He also admitted that his father-in-law was a driver in Agricultural Department of State of West Bengal before his retirement. He also admitted having a two-storeyed building. He however denied of having an income of rupees thirty-thousand per month. He also admitted that after selling scooter he purchased Hero Honda motorcycle at rupees forty-five thousand. He admitted of not sending money to his wife. He however asserted that he gave money to his wife while visiting his in-law’s place. He also denied of receiving any dowry in kind at the time of marriage. He also relied upon Namita’s deposition in maintenance case and got it exhibited. One Surojit Chakrabarty came and deposed as PW-2. According to him, the couple had discord. Namita used to quarrel, misbehave and humiliate Amiya in front of all. She insisted Amiya to stay at her place as domesticated son-in-law. During cross-examination, he admitted that Amiya was his friend. They were in the same profession. PW-3, Ranjit Kumar Mondal was the landlord in respect of the rental accommodation the couple stayed last. Namita used to quarrel, misbehave and humiliate Amiya in front of all. She insisted Amiya to stay at her place as domesticated son-in-law. During cross-examination, he admitted that Amiya was his friend. They were in the same profession. PW-3, Ranjit Kumar Mondal was the landlord in respect of the rental accommodation the couple stayed last. He deposed that the parents and brothers of Namita were frequent at such place. There was discord as Namita used to quarrel with her husband and in-laws. She abruptly left the house, despite attempt she did not come back. In cross-examination, he deposed that he could not remember the Durga Puja date of the last year however, he was specific that Namita had left the accommodation on December 24, 2000. Namita deposed as OPW-1. She was consistent with her written statement. She denied of being affluent having sufficient money in the Bank. She also disclosed the deposition of Amiya in the maintenance case. She however admitted that her husband made arrangement for her treatment while she was in her in-law’s place. She also admitted that they were residing separately for ten years and was getting regular maintenance. She was specific to the effect that she was residing with her in-laws. However her parents and brothers were to pay visit. She used to lift water from the well and used common latrine and toilet. She denied his suggestion that she was not driven out from her in-law’s place on December 24, 2000. She, once again, reiterated that her husband was working as medical representative in Elder Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. drawing rupees thirty thousand per month. Her neighbour Sipra Biswas deposed as OPW-2. According to her, the ornaments, furniture and other gifts were given at the time of marriage. While her visit to Namita Section maternal home she came to know of the physical and mental torture inflicted by Amiya upon her for non-payment of dowry. In cross-examination, however, she could not remember the house number of Namita’s father. Manas Dutta, the brother of Namita was cross-examined as OPW-3. He corroborated what had been stated by Namita and Sipra. He deposed that they did not make any complain to the Police due to fear of break-down of the maternal life. On the above evidence, the learned Judge decreed the suit and granted dissolution of marriage that gave rise to the present appeal. He corroborated what had been stated by Namita and Sipra. He deposed that they did not make any complain to the Police due to fear of break-down of the maternal life. On the above evidence, the learned Judge decreed the suit and granted dissolution of marriage that gave rise to the present appeal. We have carefully perused the judgment and order of the appeal. We find that the learned Judge recorded the rival contentions, however did not discuss and/or decide the issue raised before him. On a careful scan of the judgment, we could only find that the learned Judge was not impressed with the defence in absence of deposition from the parents who, according to him, were vital witnesses, hence, raised doubt on the allegations made in the written statement. The decisions cited at the Bar were not discussed by the learned Judge. The learned Judge lastly observed that petitioner/husband was able to prove the ground of cruelty and desertion and, thus, became entitled to get a Decree of Divorce. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Rabindranath Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the Namita took us to the pleadings and deposition to show that the grounds mentioned in the pleadings did not attract any of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 of the said Act of 1955. According to Mr. Mahato, even the pleadings were taken sacrosanct it would appear that Namita left the house on December 24, 2000 and Amiya made attempt to take her back on December 27, 2000. There was no subsequent approach by him. Namita was and still is willing to go back to her matrimonial place. According to Mr. Mahato, mere statement of cruelty was not sufficient to deserve Decree of Divorce. The mental cruelty would mean instance for which the other party suffered mentally. There was no such evidence that came out during their examination. He relied on two Apex Court decisions in this regard, reported in 2010 Volume- XIII Supreme Court Cases Page-298 (Neelam Kumar –VS- Dayarani) and 2010 Volume-XIV Supreme Court Cases Page-301 (Gurbux Singh –VS- Harminder Kaur) On the issue of desertion, Mr. Mahato contended that the petitioner/husband miserably failed to prove his case as nothing came out to justify the allegation of desertion. It was categorically contended, Namita was driven out from her matrimonial home. Mahato contended that the petitioner/husband miserably failed to prove his case as nothing came out to justify the allegation of desertion. It was categorically contended, Namita was driven out from her matrimonial home. She was and still is ready and willing to go back. This fact would automatically demolish the case of desertion. He relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Ravi Kumar –VS-Julmidevi reported in 2010 Volume-IV Supreme Court Cases Page- 476. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Asish Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for Amiya, the husband, contended that there was economic difference between the two families that became reason of discord. The wife was expensive. The husband could not successfully meet her exorbitant demands, as a result she deserted him. Such desertion without any lawful reason would definitely constitute a ground of divorce. Mr. Sanyal further contended that the desertion was admittedly from 2000 whereas Amiya filed the divorce suit in 2008. This would prove his prolonged wait for his wife to come back. Hence, the allegation of not expressing any intention to take her back did not subsist. He relied on the Apex Court decisions in the case of Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah -VS -Prabhavati reported in All India Reporter 1957 Supreme Court Page-176 and in the case of Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani –VS- Meena alias Mota reported in All India Reporter 1964 Supreme Court Page-40. He also relied upon the decision of our Court in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari Jaiswal –VS- Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal reported in All India Reporter 2007 Calcutta Page-94. Cruelty and/or mental cruelty does not have a rigid and/or specific meaning. It would vary from case to case. What is cruelty to a couple, may not be so in respect of the other. It would depend upon the respective up-bringing and their education and social status. Even a single act of violence of grievous nature could satisfy the test of cruelty whereas hundreds of events may not be sufficient to meet the requirement to come within the scope of Section 13 of the said Act of 1955. This was the consistent view of the Apex Court once again reiterated Gurbux Singh (Supra) and Neelam Kumar (Supra). Even a single act of violence of grievous nature could satisfy the test of cruelty whereas hundreds of events may not be sufficient to meet the requirement to come within the scope of Section 13 of the said Act of 1955. This was the consistent view of the Apex Court once again reiterated Gurbux Singh (Supra) and Neelam Kumar (Supra). In paragraph 14 Nilam Kumar (Supra), the Apex Court observed, “if a party to marriage, by his own conduct brings the relationship to a point of irretrievable breakdown, he/she cannot be allowed to seek divorce on the ground of breakdown of marriage”. The earlier decisions of the Apex Court were considered by our Division Bench in the case of Raj Kumari Jaiswal (Supra). In the case of Bipinchandra (Supra), the Apex Court considered Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947. The Apex Court considered the issue of desertion in paragraph 19, 20 and 21 wherein the Apex Court considered the factual matrix where the wife left her husband Section place in shame not having the courage to face him after discovery of her reprehensible conduct it would not render her a deserter in the eye of law. Such observation was made in the context of Section 12 of the said Act of 1947. In the case of Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani (Supra), the Apex Court considered Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the context of desertion. The Apex Court observed, in certain circumstance where the spouse living under the same room could be accused of desertion. We are, however, not oblivion of the fact that we noticed in the said decision wherein the wife resisted the husband’s plea of restitution of conjugal rights. Her husband prayed for divorce. The Court below granted the same and the Division Bench upheld so inter alia relying on the said peculiar fact involved therein. Before we heard the matter we called the couple. The husband was rigid and determined not to take his wife back. From the facts it would appear that the Court below particularly was swayed away with the fact of desertion for ten years. Significant to note, the judgment was delivered on December 23, 2010 just ten years after she admittedly left her matrimonial home. If we consider the evidence in its true spirit we would find that the charge of cruelty could not be proved. Significant to note, the judgment was delivered on December 23, 2010 just ten years after she admittedly left her matrimonial home. If we consider the evidence in its true spirit we would find that the charge of cruelty could not be proved. Similarly, the reason for desertion is not clear to us. The husband says, wife abruptly left the house whereas, according to the wife, she was compelled to do so being unbearable to withstand the torture. The husband did not make any attempt to nullify such definite assertion of the wife through independent evidence. Hence, it would be difficult to affirm the Decree of Divorce. In our social context and in Indian perception, the Court of Law is duty bound to try its level best to maintain the institution of marriage, rather than to break it. Hence, the parties seeking divorce would have to come with positive evidence in support of the grounds mentioned in the pleadings. Even if we take the pleadings and evidence of the petitioner in their face value we would unhesitatingly say, no case of cruelty could be made out. On the issue of desertion, the husband should have come with a better proof. Mere statement, he attempted to take his wife back on December 27, 2000, would not be sufficient particularly when he filed the suit for divorce in 2008.No explanation was offered for this prolonged delay. It is true that the wife was also silent. She did not approach the Court for restitution of conjugal rights. Such laches, if any, on the part of the wife would not, per se, help the husband to get a divorce as a matter of course. We are of the view that the Court below did not venture to find out whether there was reasonable evidence to support the case of cruelty or the case of desertion, in fact there was no discussion at all. The learned Judge recorded the submissions and/or rival contentions made by the parties. The learned Judge did not discuss the law on the subject cited at the Bar. We are unable to put our seal of approval to the Decree of Divorce that was granted by the Court below. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order is set aside. The Matrimonial Suit No.335 of 2008 is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. We are unable to put our seal of approval to the Decree of Divorce that was granted by the Court below. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order is set aside. The Matrimonial Suit No.335 of 2008 is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Let the Lower Court Records be sent down at once. Urgent Photostat Copy will be given to the parties, if applied for. Shukla Kabir (Sinha), J. I agree.