JUDGMENT Anima Hazarika, J. 1. By this matrimonial appeal, the wife who is the respondent in FC (Civil) Suit No. 43/2008 and the petitioner in FC (Civil) Suit No. 228/2008 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati has assailed the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2012 and 16.02.2012 respectively passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Judge dissolved the marriage between the spouses by decree of divorce filed by the petitioner husband in FC(Civil) Suit No. 43/2008 but refused to pass the decree for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the appellant herein and petitioner in FC(Civil) Suit No. 228/2008. Heard Ms. M.D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant wife. Also heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent husband. 2. The brief facts in FC (Civil) Suit No. 43/2008 filed by the husband against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce whereas in FC (Civil) Suit No. 228/2008 filed by the wife against the husband seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights are summarized hereinbelow: Admittedly, the marriage between the spouses was solemnized on 07.02.2007 at Sukreswar Temple according to Hindu rites and rituals. The husband hails from Bengali community whereas the respondent wife belongs to Assamese family. Both are the employees of IOC Ltd. The husband is a Typist Clerk whereas the respondent wife is an Operation Officer in IOC Ltd. They started their conjugal life at IOC residential complex, Borjhar, Guwahati. The matrimonial offence started after the marriage when the respondent wife refused to perform any domestic work and she wants that the household works are to be done exclusively by the members of her in-laws, particularly mother-in- law. The wife did not part with her salary for the family, rather all the expenses are to be borne by his mother from her pension. The wife did not cooperate with the petitioner and his family members in the festivals like Durga Puja, Lakshmi Puja and Kali Puja etc. inspite of repeated request and she used to stay in her parental house and enjoyed the festival keeping him alone. She never showed any respect to the deceased father-in-law and did not even attend his Shraddha Ceremony. inspite of repeated request and she used to stay in her parental house and enjoyed the festival keeping him alone. She never showed any respect to the deceased father-in-law and did not even attend his Shraddha Ceremony. The allegations of matrimonial offence as pleaded would further reveal that the wife insulted him by calling him 'suwarar bacchha', 'Namord' (impotent), causing mental cruelty. There was no cohabitation between them since long and the wife is 15 years older than him. The wife even assaulted him in the Office which caused injury at his hand. During the married life, the wife threatened him and his family members on several occasions contending that she would commit suicide and will prepare a suicide note blaming all of them. From the beginning of married life, the wife demanded divorce and called the petitioner as 'Namord' (impotent), almost every night and on 31.12.2007, the respondent wife had demanded divorce which caused serious dispute between them. The conduct of the respondent would further reveal from the SMS sent by her whereupon she removed her vermillion from her forehead and broke her 'Sakha'. On 11.01.2008, the petitioner got double promotion and transferred to IOC, Nagaon Depot whereupon she got herself transferred to Nagaon and forcefully tried to enter into his residence. There is no love and trust between them and since 2008, they are living separately by sorting all cohabitation permanently to an end and hence the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree for divorce. Whereas the husband i.e. the respondent in FC (Civil) Suit No. 228/2008 filed his written statement denying the allegations as pleaded in the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. The acts complained of in FC (Civil) Suit No. 228 of 2008 by the petitioner wife whereby she sought for a decree for restitution of her conjugal rights is that the petitioner is an Operation Officer in IOC and she was in deep love with the respondent husband who is also an employee of IOC. They had sexual intercourse on several occasions and thereby she lost her chastity. After about six years of love they united with the bond of marriage at Sukreswar Temple in the month of January, 2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals. They had sexual intercourse on several occasions and thereby she lost her chastity. After about six years of love they united with the bond of marriage at Sukreswar Temple in the month of January, 2007 as per Hindu rites and rituals. But after 8/9 months of marriage, the mother-in-law, uncle-in-law and two sisters-in-law including the respondent treated her inhumanly by adopting negligent attitude; even then she did not raise any objection. Her further pleaded fact is that she belongs to a respectable Assamese family whereas the husband hails from a Bengali family. The petitioner loved the respondent so much that there was no area of disagreement between them. But the respondent gradually started to misbehave with her in trifling matters. However, the petitioner tolerated all such tortures of the respondents including in-laws considering her married life. On the other hand the respondent at the instigation of his family members instituted a divorce case being F.C. (Civil) suit No. 43/2008 with some false allegations though they lived together as husband and wife till filing of the divorce case. The petitioner never disrespected the respondent prior to her marriage and even after the marriage including all his family members and it is the respondent who willfully deserted her by taking transfer to Nagaon without any prior consultation with the petitioner depriving her due conjugal rights and hence she prayed for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. In FC (Civil) suit No. 43 of 2008, where the husband sought for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce, the wife contested the suit by filing the written statement contending inter alia that prior to the marriage, the petitioner co-habited with the respondent wife using contraceptive pills and other measures to prevent pregnancy. Both of them are employees of IOC, and she had to attend the office at 8.30 AM to 6.00-7.00 PM, wherefor she could not do any domestic works but she used to help in all the domestic works including preparation of tea, rice and other works wherever her help is required. She is providing Rs. 4/5 thousand per month to her mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law also draws family pension. She has to look after her old, parents and an unemployed brother. She is providing Rs. 4/5 thousand per month to her mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law also draws family pension. She has to look after her old, parents and an unemployed brother. The allegations made in the divorce petition are false since no complaint had been made to anybody till the filing of the divorce case. On the other hand it is the petitioner and his family members who used to torture her by using abusive words after 6 months of their marriage. She was allowed to go to her parental house only in one puja vacation during the time of her married life and that there is every chance of their re-union and denied the allegations of sending SMS through mobile phone as she still deserves the happy conjugal life and hence prayed for dismissal of divorce case. 5. In F.C. (Civil) Suit No. 228/2008, the respondent husband contested the case by filing written statement denying the allegations contending inter alia that a reading of the written statement in F.C. (Civil) suit No. 43 of 2008, it would reveal that the wife alleged him as a 'Bengali Fundamentalist' and biased on several aspects making communal differences between Bengali and Assamese and she asked for assurance from him for her security in life and her case is a counter case of the divorce petition, whereas she lived separately at Nagaon Depot Boguriguri in the quarter and he (the husband) resides in a rented house. She has committed many wrongs in her matrimonial life and is guilty of cruelty. All the statements made in the written statement are same as pleaded in the divorce petition. For the sake of brevity those are not repeated herein again. The respondent husband therefore prayed for dismissal of the case filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 since the divorce petition was filed prior to F.C. (Civil) Suit No. 228/2008. 6. Attempts were made for reconciliation between the parties but failed despite endeavour made by learned counselor and accordingly the case proceeded for trial. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed issues case wise. For convenience of discussions, case wise issues are noted hereinbelow:-- (A) FC (Civil) No. 43/2008 (1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce as prayed for? Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed issues case wise. For convenience of discussions, case wise issues are noted hereinbelow:-- (A) FC (Civil) No. 43/2008 (1) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce as prayed for? (3) To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? (B) FC (Civil) No. 228/2008 (4) Whether the respondent has deserted and left the society of the petitioner without any just cause? (5) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of restitution of conjugal rights? (6) To what relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? 7. The parties to the proceedings i.e. the husband examined four witnesses, whereas the wife has examined two witnesses including themselves to substantiate their respective cases. 8. In matrimonial offence if bitter waters are flowing, it is not necessary to inquire from what source they spring. Where there is a proof of a deliberate course of conduct on the part of one intended to hurt and humiliate the other spouse and so persisted in that it seriously affects the mental and bodily health of that party, cruelty can easily be inferred. In the instant case the pleaded facts established by the parties during the trial is that the marriage was solemnized between the spouse on 07.02.2007 and what happened during a short span of married life is that the husband had to wait for one year to overcome the statutory period before which no divorce proceeding can be initiated in any court of law. One year statutory period was over on 07.02.2008 and the divorce petition was filed on 08.02.2008 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati. 9. The learned trial court granted divorce on the following allegations which have been proved:-- (i) The husband filed the divorce proceeding on completion of just one year of statutory period because of unwarrantable indifference on the part of the wife towards her husband, callous attitude, deliberate refusal to cooperate and calculated harassment on every night using the words like 'Suarar Bacha', 'Namord' (impotent) which amounts to mental cruelty. (ii) The wife on 31.12.2007 demanded divorce and serious dispute took place between the parties which has been proved by independent witness and ill treatment is of such a degree where there would be reasonable apprehension that cohabitation would be harmful. 10. (ii) The wife on 31.12.2007 demanded divorce and serious dispute took place between the parties which has been proved by independent witness and ill treatment is of such a degree where there would be reasonable apprehension that cohabitation would be harmful. 10. The learned trial court took up the issue Nos. 1 and 4 of both the cases and considered the entire evidence of P.W. 1, the husband, P.W. 2, Smti. Sibani Ghose the mother of the petitioner, P.W. 3 Sri Dilip Ghose, the uncle of the petitioner and P.W. 4 Sri Dipak Baruah. P.W. 1 narrated the entire story as pleaded in his pleadings and in cross-examination he stated that he joined in IOC Ltd. in 2000 and the respondent wife joined in 1997 in the same office in different Branch and he was introduced with the respondent in the year 2001. Since 2005 they developed love affairs and he decided to marry her and their marriage was solemnized on 07.02.2007. Other suggestions put to him were denied. He has not mentioned in his evidence about the date, time, way, etc. as to when and how the respondent has tortured mentally. P.W. 2 Smti. Sibani Ghosh supported the pleadings on affidavit and on cross-examination denied the suggestions put to her. She has also stated that she does not know about the conduct of the parties in office. She has no objection if the petitioner wants to take back the respondent. P.W. 3 Sri Dilip Ghosh in cross-examination has stated that he has seen the quarrel between the parties but the date etc. has not been mentioned. The other suggestions are denied by him. The evidence of P.W. 4 Deepak Baruah would disclose that he knows the parties. He attended the marriage of the parties at Sukreswar temple. He used to go to petitioner husband's house almost regularly and has very good relation with them. Some disputes took place between the parties after the marriage for which husband Gautam Ghosh had to sleep on the sofa set at night. Sometimes at night, quarrels took place between them and the respondent wife demanded divorce. He heard from the family members of the petitioner husband that the respondent wife refused to cooperate with domestic works. Respondent wife even refused to take Prasad of Narayan Puja and remained absent at Shraddha ceremony of her deceased father-in-law. Sometimes at night, quarrels took place between them and the respondent wife demanded divorce. He heard from the family members of the petitioner husband that the respondent wife refused to cooperate with domestic works. Respondent wife even refused to take Prasad of Narayan Puja and remained absent at Shraddha ceremony of her deceased father-in-law. She used to threaten the family members of her in-laws that she would commit suicide blaming them and even assaulted her husband in his office in front of the office staff. She removed her vermillion in font of the petitioner and his family members. She is 15 years older than him. In cross-examination P.W. 4 has stated that he has business of vehicle. He attended duty from 10 am to 5 pm. Gautam's house is about 1 1/2 miles away from his house at Borjhar. Borjhar and Kahikuchi are two different places. He has further stated that he cannot read right now what is written in his evidence in English. He denied other suggestions put to him. 11. While dealing with the issue No. 4 in FC (Civil) No. 228 of 2008, the evidence of the petitioner Smti. Archana Das was scrutinized by the learned trial Court where the petitioner wife has stated that after 8/9 months of their marriage, her mother-in-law, uncle-in-law, two sisters-in-law including the husband used to indulge abusive and filthy language towards her. She was behaved inhumanly by all the family members of her husband who do not resist and protest when they indulge inhuman behaviour frequently causing her marital life unhappy and miserable. Under the influence of family members, her husband became violent and frequently resorted to unbecoming behaviour towards her and to get rid of her, he has filed the divorce case. Her husband has made certain thought provoking and false allegations against her with malafide intention to prepare grounds for divorce. Despite the rude and ill behaviour of her husband and his family members, every effort to maintain a peaceful marital life from her end is still maintained, even though the husband deserted her on 08.02.2008 and deprived of her due conjugal right. In cross-examination, she stated that they are living separately at Nagaon and Thekeraguri. She filed the case for restitution of conjugal rights after filing the divorce case by her husband. In cross-examination, she stated that they are living separately at Nagaon and Thekeraguri. She filed the case for restitution of conjugal rights after filing the divorce case by her husband. She admitted that they have differences due to caste differences and her husband is inferior in status than her and also 15 years younger to her. She denied all other suggestions put to her. 12. In his deposition, Shri Jiban Chandra Das, the father of the respondent wife would disclose that he supported the case of his daughter Archana Das. In cross-examination, he has stated that both the parties were living together for about 9 months only after their marriage. He does not know about the cause of their dispute and his daughter told nothing to him. He admitted that his son-in-law is from Bengali community and both of them are working in OIL in the same office. He denied the suggestions put to him. 13. The learned trial court considered the evidence on record more particularly the evidence of the husband relating to conduct of the wife Smti. Archana Das, holding the conduct of the wife very serious and grave for which the husband wanted to file divorce petition immediately after marriage, but had to wait for completion of statutory period and there was also no effective cross-examination on this point. Moreover, the words like 'Suarar Bacha', 'Namord' (impotent) by the wife towards her husband caused disturbance and affects the mental peace of the husband and the acts of the wife can safely be concluded as mental cruelty, whereas the wife has failed to establish that her husband deserted her and denied her due conjugal rights and since 08.02.2008 withdrawn himself from her society without reasonable excuse and hence passed the decree for dissolution of marriage between the parties rejecting the petition filed under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the wife for restitution of conjugal right. Hence the instant appeal. 14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the materials including the evidence available on record. Hence the instant appeal. 14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the materials including the evidence available on record. The trial court took the date of solemnization of marriage on 07.02.2007 and the date of filing the divorce petition on 08.02.2008 as the crucial point in determining the relation of the spouses vis--vis the provisions of section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act along with the evidence of P.W. 1, the husband and P.W. 4 Sri Deepak Baruah and the words uttered by the wife as 'Suarar bacha' and 'Namord' (impotent) to her husband which the trial court held, can be termed as matrimonial offence set out on a course of conduct with deliberate intention of wounding and humiliating the husband making his life a burden and then to continue in that course of conduct fully knowing that it would seriously affect his mental and physical health. Apart from the evidence of P.W. 1, the evidence of P.W. 4 amply demonstrate that there is matrimonial offence committed by the wife towards her husband wherein it has been established that the husband used to sleep in a sofa during night, more so, the assault by the wife to the husband in the office in presence of staff amounts to mental and physical cruelty as held by the learned trial Court. In the case of Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi reported in Shobha Rani Vs. Madhukar Reddi reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105 , Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty speaking for the Division Bench, at paragraph 18 held as thus;-- ...Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that the party has after solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty. What do these words mean? What should be the nature of cruelty? Should it be only intentional, wilful or deliberate? Is it necessary to prove the intention in matrimonial offence? We think not. We have earlier said that cruelty may be of any kind and any variety. It may be different in different cases. It is in relation to the conduct of parties to a marriage. That conduct which is complained of as cruelty by one spouse may not be so for the other spouse. There may be instances of cruelty by the unintentional but inexcusable conduct of any party. The cruel treatment may also result by the cultural conflict of the spouse. It is in relation to the conduct of parties to a marriage. That conduct which is complained of as cruelty by one spouse may not be so for the other spouse. There may be instances of cruelty by the unintentional but inexcusable conduct of any party. The cruel treatment may also result by the cultural conflict of the spouse. In such cases, even if the act of cruelty is established, the intention to commit suicide cannot be established. The aggrieved party may not get relief. We do not think that that was the intention with which the Parliament enacted Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act The context and the set up in which the word 'cruelty' has been used in the section, seems to us, that intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. That word has to be understood in the ordinary sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred by the nature of the conduct or brutal act complained of, cruelty could be easily established. But the absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human affairs, the act complained of would otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or willful ill-treatment.... 15. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court relating to issue No. 1 and issue No. 4 in both the FC (Civil) No. 43 of 2008 and FC (Civil) No. 228/2008 and thus affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati. 16. A decision has been cited by the counsel representing the appellant wife reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301 : Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur wherein the Apex Court dealt with the question of mental cruelty as contained in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Apex Court has held that, ...The ill conduct must be precedent for a fairly lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party no longer may amount to mental cruelty. There is no ambiguity on the decision rendered by the Apex Court. There is no ambiguity on the decision rendered by the Apex Court. In the instant case a reading of the divorce petition and the written statement filed by the wife would disclose that both the spouse were in love prior to the marriage and the marriage was solemnized on 07.02.2007 and the divorce petition was filed on 08.02.2008 on completion of just one year of statutory period where for the learned trial court held that the wife has committed matrimonial offence after the marriage. Moreover, uttering of words 'Suarar bacha', 'Namord' (impotent), assault in the office in the presence of staff was a deliberate attempt to humiliate the husband resulting in physical and mental cruelty and this court do not find any perversity in the judgment dated 13.02.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati in decreeing the dissolution of marriage between the spouses. 17. In the result, the matrimonial appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Send down the lower Court records forthwith. Appeal dismissed