JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2010, passed by learned Judge, Family Court in T.S. (DIV) 182 of 2008 where-under the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala rejected the prayer of divorce filed by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.K. Biswas for the appellant-husband and learned counsel Mr. H. Debnath for the respondent-wife. 2. This is yet another unfortunate matrimonial dispute which has shuttered 14 years old matrimonial bond between the appellant (hereinafter mentioned as petitioner) husband and the respondent-wife (hereinafter mentioned as respondent). The petitioner is a Group-D employee and the respondent is a house wife. Their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites following love affairs on 07.03.1995 and thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife and a female child was born on 30.06.1996 out of their wedlock. Soon after marriage they lived and cohabited peacefully and enjoyed their matrimonial relation while living in a rented house belonged to one Uttam Debnath near Rajdhani Hotel at Mara Chowmohani, Agartala and thereafter they lived and cohabited in a Type-I quarters of Power Department, allotted in the name of father of the respondent and the matrimonial relation subsequently become bitter and amid lot of bitterness they lived together as husband and wife till July, 2008 and thereafter, the matrimonial relation come to an end. 3. The petitioner set the law in motion presenting an application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree of divorce against his wife, the respondent, on the ground of cruelty. It is, inter alia, alleged by the petitioner that they lived and cohabited peacefully for about 10 years and a girl child was also born out of their wedlock but for the last one and half years, the respondent put pressure on him to give money to her parental home and to give honour to the words of respondent, the petitioner used to hand over his entire income to the hand of the respondent but the respondent was not at all happy with the income of the petitioner and had no respect for the petitioner as her husband. In the year 1996 the petitioner went out of the State for his personal affairs and at that time at the instance of his father-in-law, his wife shifted to a Type-1 quarters of Electricity Department with all belongings and after his return to the rented house when he enquired with the house owner, he got the information that after he left the house his wife along with his father-in-law shifted to a type-I quarters, with all belongings, near Electricity Department at Banamalipur and thereafter he went to the quarters which was allotted in the name of his father-in-law and discussed on the issue. He alleged that the respondent used to threaten him that he should increase his income otherwise, she will divorce him. He also alleged that the respondent on many occasions poured kerosene oil on her body and threatened the petitioner that she will commit suicide and would threat the petitioner of police arrest and incarceration. The petitioner because of his self-respect requested his wife even touching her feet not to do so and his wife beaten him even with her shoes. He did not disclose it to anybody out of shame. He further alleged that his wife was not a characterless woman but was of suspicious character and in the event of his late return from office she used to suspect him and would abuse him with filthy and vulgar words. She often used to refuse cohabitation with him and would say that a husband like him was of no use who cannot earn sufficient. She also used to threat him naming her father and brothers and would say that her father was a prominent leader and they will treat him properly. He further stated that he will continue to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter but he prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce since it was not possible on his part to live with her. 4. The respondent contended that at the time of marriage, the petitioner was a driver and in the year 1996 he got a job under the R.D. Department as a Class IV staff. 4. The respondent contended that at the time of marriage, the petitioner was a driver and in the year 1996 he got a job under the R.D. Department as a Class IV staff. After the marriage they were residing as a tenant in the house of Uttam Debnath but the petitioner was not in a position to pay the house rent because of his poor income and so he requested his father-in-law to allow them to stay in the vacant quarters allotted in the name of his father-in-law and accordingly his father-in-law i.e. the father of the respondent allowed them and thereafter they started living in the quarters allotted in the name of her father and continuously lived there for 12 years. Their daughter was also born in that quarter. While the petitioner was posted outside Agartala at that time also they resided in that quarter. It is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner was habitual in taking drinks and after 2/3 years of marriage he started torture on the respondent whenever she used to ask him to pay for day to day expenditure of the family. There was occasion that the respondent was beaten out from the matrimonial home and she stayed in the courtyard during night time. It is also alleged that the petitioner developed illicit relation with one Malini Debbarma, a constable of police posted at Kunjaban Police Out post to which the respondent objected but the petitioner could not tolerate the objection and, therefore, beaten up the respondent severely and even threatened her that she should accept his relationship with Malini Debbarma and otherwise he will divorce her. The petitioner thereafter left the matrimonial home and started living in a rented house at Town Indranagar owned by Paritosh Chowdhury and finding no other alternative, the respondent with her minor daughter took shelter in her parents' house at Dhaleswar in November, 2007. She has further stated that in June, 2008 at the intervention of relatives, the petitioner took her to his rented house but after few days, the respondent found a photograph of petitioner with Malini Debbarma under the pillow and when she asked about it, the petitioner got annoyed and assaulted her physically and thereafter poured Kerosene Oil on her person and set her to fire at about 9-00 p.m. and thereafter left the house. On the following day she left the house and took shelter in her parents' house in July, 2008. Again after 4/5 months the respondent was taken to the rented house of the petitioner at Dhaleswar in the house of one Rabindra Baidya but after about 14/15 days, the petitioner again assaulted the respondent severely on 22.11.2008 since the respondent requested the petitioner not to maintain relation with Malini Debbarma. Because of that physical assault, the respondent had to be hospitalized and was under treatment for about 4 days. She thereafter took shelter in her parents' house and also lodged an FIR in Agartala Women P.S. and accordingly Agartala Women P.S. Case No. 207/2008 under Section 498(A) of IPC was registered. She finally contended that the petitioner cannot get the decree of divorce and she prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned trial Judge considering the pleadings of the parties, framed three issues namely; (I) Whether the petition is maintainable in its present form and nature? (II) Whether for the last 2 years, the petitioner was tortured both mentally and physically by the respondent because of his low income and his inability to satisfy the luxurious demand made by the respondent or whether the respondent was tortured in a state of intoxication by the petitioner when she used to raise objection against his illicit relationship with one Smti Malini Debbarma and one day deserted the wife respondent without any reasonable cause? (III) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce as prayed for? 6. In course of trial, the petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined three more witnesses namely P.W. 2 Sri Rupak Kar, P.W. 3 Sri Indrajit Karmakar and P.W. 4 Smt. Sanchita Karmakar. On the other hand, respondent examined herself as D.W. 1 and also examined 5 more witnesses namely D.W. 2 Sri Kartik Karmakar, D.W. 3 Smt. Jayasree Nandi, D.W. 4 Smt. Sefali Deb Roy, D.W. 5 Shri Ganesh Datta and D.W. 6 Smt. Swapna Karmakar. 7. Learned Judge, Family Court considering the pleadings and evidence on record decided the material issues against the petitioner and consequently refused to grant decree of divorce. 8. In the petition seeking divorce, the petitioner alleged that his wife was not happy with his meager income and on that ground she used to treat him with cruelty. 7. Learned Judge, Family Court considering the pleadings and evidence on record decided the material issues against the petitioner and consequently refused to grant decree of divorce. 8. In the petition seeking divorce, the petitioner alleged that his wife was not happy with his meager income and on that ground she used to treat him with cruelty. She often poured Kerosene Oil on her body with a threat to the petitioner that she will commit suicide and thereby the petitioner will be arrested and will be detained in jail custody. The petitioner also alleged that the respondent refused to cohabit with him and that she was of suspicious character and in the event of his delayed return to home from office, she used to suspect his character and used to abuse him with filthy and vulgar words. In his deposition the petitioner simply stated that his wife had no respect for him and she used to do whatever she liked and would neglect him as a husband. He tried his level best to fulfill the demand of his wife with his meager income as a Group-D employee but could not satisfy her. There were efforts taken for mitigation of the family dispute even at the instance of Advocate but could not. She poured Kerosene Oil on her body with a view to blame him subsequently for action. He had a friend whose younger sister was serving as a police constable and in fact he had given lift to her during rainy season on some occasions and that he had no relationship with her and further she was also given in marriage. P.W. 2 stated that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the respondent and thereafter they entered into marital tie. There was dispute and quarrel between the husband and wife and they tried to mitigate the dispute but failed. The petitioner told him that he was physically tortured by his wife and also his wife abused him with filthy language. He was also told by the petitioner that his wife did not give him proper respect. However, he advised them to live together for the welfare of their daughter. He also stated that the respondent told him that the petitioner was maintaining illicit relation with one police constable but he did not see any such bad relation of the petitioner with that lady. However, he advised them to live together for the welfare of their daughter. He also stated that the respondent told him that the petitioner was maintaining illicit relation with one police constable but he did not see any such bad relation of the petitioner with that lady. P.W. 4 is the wife of brother of the respondent and P.W. 3 is the father of P.W. 4. Both of them stated about the bad relation between the petitioner and respondent and they alleged that at the instance of the respondent, husband of P.W. 4 married another woman and went away from the house. 9. The respondent-wife in her pleadings alleged that the petitioner was a habitual drunker and even was not capable of meeting the family expenditure and he used to ill treat her in the matrimonial home. She also alleged that the petitioner developed illicit relation with one Malini Debbarma, a constable of police posted at Kunjaban Police Out Post and she raised protest in such illicit relation for which the petitioner assaulted her physically and left the matrimonial home and thereafter resided in the house of one Paritosh Chowdhury. At the instance of relatives and well wishers, the respondent again lived with the petitioner in the month of June, 2008 but she found a photograph of the petitioner with Malini Debbarma under pillow and when questioned about the same she was again beaten up and even Kerosene Oil was poured on her person and she was set to fire and thereafter she took shelter in her parental house in the month of July, 2008. After 4/5 months the petitioner again took her to his rented house at Dhaleswar but on 22.11.2008 on the issue of relation with Malini Debbarma she was again beaten up severely for which she instituted criminal case at Agartala Women P.S. vide Case No. 207 of 2008 under Section 498(A) of IPC. In her deposition before Court she stated that she do not want to give divorce to her husband since in that event he will marry his girl friend with whom he was found moving here and there. She also stated that she was willing to live with the petitioner as husband and wife. She further stated that her husband used to come at late hours of night in a state of intoxication. She also stated that she was willing to live with the petitioner as husband and wife. She further stated that her husband used to come at late hours of night in a state of intoxication. He used to maintain illicit relation with said police constable Malini Debbarma and that was the root cause of the dispute. 10. D.W. 2 is the father of the respondent and he stated that the petitioner used to maintain illicit relation with one woman constable of Kunjaban Police Out Post and that the divorce should not be granted to the petitioner. D.W. 3 is the minor daughter of the petitioner and respondent and she stated that her father used to talk with the lady frequently and when her mother caught her father he became furious and physically tortured her mother. D.W. 4 stated nothing material. D.W. 5 stated that he is the husband of elder sister of the petitioner and when the petitioner was unemployed he used to stay in the house of D.W. 5 at Udaipur and at that time also, the petitioner created much problem. After marriage he used to torture the respondent and on one occasion, he found the respondent at G.B. Hospital while she was under treatment due to torture by the petitioner. D.W. 6 is the younger sister of the respondent and she also stated that the cause of dispute between the petitioner and the respondent was the relation of the petitioner with a lady constable Malini Debbarma and she stated that divorce should not be granted. 11. From the pleadings and evidence it appears that initially the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was smooth but it went bitter when the respondent started suspecting the petitioner of his illicit relation with a police constable namely Malini Debbarma. In her evidence, the respondent alleged that the petitioner used to maintain illicit relation with Malini. The petitioner in his evidence stated that the younger sister of his friend was a constable of police and he gave her lift on some occasions during rainy season and he had no illicit relation with her. He has also stated that the said girl had already been given in marriage. 12. The respondent simply made the allegation that her husband, the petitioner used to maintain illicit relation with Malini Debbarma. He has also stated that the said girl had already been given in marriage. 12. The respondent simply made the allegation that her husband, the petitioner used to maintain illicit relation with Malini Debbarma. She nowhere stated that her husband passed time with Malini Debbarma on any occasion or that Malini Debbarma was brought at home or that the petitioner lived with Malini Debbarma at any time anywhere. Her allegation appears to be hearsay out of mere suspicion and nothing else. Her father and sister also made the allegation of illicit relation only on hearsay basis having no genuine cause for such allegation. The minor daughter of the petitioner and respondent i.e. D.W. 3 has made a statement which even not stated by her mother. She being in the care and custody of her mother may make a statement as tutored by the respondent There is practically no cogent evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner maintaining illicit relation with Malini Debbarma a constable of police. 13. Now, the question is whether imputing of such allegation by one of the spouse against the other amounts to mental cruelty or not? 14. The term 'mental cruelty' has been defined in the Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn., 2004) as under: "Mental cruelty - as a ground for divorce, one spouses course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the life, physical health or mental health of the other spouse." 15. Cruelty for the purpose of divorce has not been defined in the matrimonial law. But, by now, it has been well settled by judgment laws. The Halsbury's Laws of England (vol. 13, 4th Edition Para 1269, summarises concept of cruelty as under:- "The general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred, it is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the physical and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse. Malevolent intention is not essential to cruelty but it is an important element where it exists." 16. In 24 American Jurisprudence mental cruelty has been defined as-- "mental cruelty as a course of unprovoked conduct towards one spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation and anguish so as to render the spouses life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which, so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse". 17. In this case the petitioner alleged that they had a peaceful matrimonial life amid poverty and his wife used to put pressure on him for more income which he could not afford. He simply alleged that his wife had a suspicious character of suspecting him. The respondent alleged that the petitioner is a drunker and used to return in late hours taking drinks and that he used to maintain illicit relation with Malini Debbarma, a police constable. The allegation of illicit relation of the petitioner with Malini Debbarma remained unfounded and such allegation positively amounts to mental cruelty exercised by the respondent on her husband, the petitioner. 18. Matrimonial relation depends on mutual love and affection, utmost faith and believe and mutual performance of matrimonial obligations. It is said that a house is built with bricks and cement, but a home is built with love and affection. Where love and affection goes and hatred and distrust blossoms between the husband and wife, matrimonial home become a hell. If the relationship and mutual obligation to each other goes, there remains nothing to keep the matrimonial tie alive. 19. Where love and affection goes and hatred and distrust blossoms between the husband and wife, matrimonial home become a hell. If the relationship and mutual obligation to each other goes, there remains nothing to keep the matrimonial tie alive. 19. Cruelty exercised by one of the partner to the marriage is a good ground for the other partner to seek divorce. Cruelty depends upon particular facts and circumstances of the case. The passing of decree on this ground requires the matrimonial offence to be established so as to conclude that cruelty has resulted into a situation where the spouses can no longer live together. The behavioural indiscretion by way of cruelty must be on the part of the respondent. 20. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 : (1975) 2 SCC 326 critically examined the matrimonial ground of cruelty and has observed that the inquiry in any case covered by the provision had to be whether the conduct charged as cruelty is of such a character as to cause in the mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. It was also pointed out that it was not necessary, as under the English Law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause "danger" to life, limb or health or as to give rise to reasonable apprehension of such a danger though, of course, harm or injury to health, reputation, the working career or the like, would be an important consideration in determining whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty or not. What was required was that the petitioner must prove that the respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. 21. In the case of Sobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105 the Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the concept of cruelty. The Court held that the word 'cruelty' has not been defined in Hindu Marriage Act. 21. In the case of Sobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, reported in (1988) 1 SCC 105 the Supreme Court had an occasion to examine the concept of cruelty. The Court held that the word 'cruelty' has not been defined in Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse, There may, however, be cases where the conduct complained of itself is had enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted. The absence of intention should not make any difference in the case, if by ordinary sense of human affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be regarded as cruelty. Intention is not a necessary element in cruelty. The relief to the party cannot be denied on the ground that there has been no deliberate or willful ill treatment. 22. In the case of V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 , the Apex Court in Para 16 of the judgment has held-- "Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made." 23. In the case of Chetan Dass vs. Kamla Devi, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 250 , the Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment observed-- "Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by Statute framed, keeping in view such norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of the individuals as well as in broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well knit, healthy and not a disturbed and porous society. Institution of marriage occupies an important place and role to play in the society, in general. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply any submission of "irretrievably broken marriage" as a straight jacket formula for grant of relief of divorce. This aspect has to be considered in the background of the other facts and circumstances of the case." 24. Institution of marriage occupies an important place and role to play in the society, in general. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply any submission of "irretrievably broken marriage" as a straight jacket formula for grant of relief of divorce. This aspect has to be considered in the background of the other facts and circumstances of the case." 24. In the case of Sabitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 , the Apex Court observed that mental cruelty is the conduct of the other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. 'Cruelty', therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be a just on the basis of course of conduct which would be in general be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. 25. In the case at hand, the petitioner alleged that the respondent often used to pour kerosene oil on her body and would threaten the petitioner that she will commit suicide setting her to fire and in that case, the petitioner will have to suffer arrest and detention in custody. In his deposition also the petitioner stated that the respondent poured kerosene oil on her body blaming him subsequently for such action. The respondent in her pleadings stated that after she started living with her husband in the month of June, 2008 and when she discovered a photograph of the petitioner with Malini Debbarma under the pillow and protested about it, she was set to fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body and on the following day she left for her parents' house. In her deposition she stated nothing about that occurrence. If she was put to fire after pouring kerosene oil, whether she received any burn injury or not that has not been stated by her. But she made allegation of pouring Kerosene Oil on her body and setting her to fire. In her deposition she stated nothing about that occurrence. If she was put to fire after pouring kerosene oil, whether she received any burn injury or not that has not been stated by her. But she made allegation of pouring Kerosene Oil on her body and setting her to fire. In her pleadings she also stated that she instituted a criminal case under Section 498(A) of IPC in the police Station alleging that she was subjected to cruelty but in her deposition she stated nothing about such allegation of physical torture or physical assault on her on 22.11.2008. It is, therefore, evident that the respondent used to make baseless allegation against the petitioner husband which amounts inflicting of severe mental suffering or fear to the petitioner in continuing matrimonial relation with the respondent. 26. In the case of Gananath Pattanaik vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 619 , the Supreme Court has observed that the concept of cruelty and its effect varies from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. "Cruelty" for the purposes of constituting the offence under the said section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behavior may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. 27. In the case of Prabin Mehta vs. Inderjit Mehta, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 , the Supreme Court made observation on mental cruelty. In para 21 of the judgment, the Court has observed-- "21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of mis-behaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other." 28. In the case of A. Jayachandra vs. Aneel Kaur, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 , the Supreme Court has elaborately observed on the expression cruelty. The Court has held--The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. To constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the conclusion whether the conduct complained of amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of parties, their education, physical and mental conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive description of the circumstances, which would constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party. The Court dealing with the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind that the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in a spouse's conduct have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However insignificant or trifling, such conduct may cause pain in the mind of another. But before the conduct can be called cruelty, it must touch a certain pitch of severity. It is for the Court to weigh the gravity. It has to be seen whether the conduct was such that no reasonable person would tolerate it. It has to be considered whether the complainant should be called upon to endure as a part of normal human life. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. Cruelty in matrimonial life may be of unfounded variety, which can be subtle or brutal. It may be words, gestures or by mere silence, violent or non-violent. 29. In the case at hand the petitioner in his pleadings alleged that his wife is not a characterless woman but she has a character of suspecting him and whenever he used to return late from office, she would abuse him with filthy language. He alleged that she often used to pour Kerosene Oil on her body and would threat him saying that she will commit suicide by burning and in that case, the petitioner will be arrested and detained in custody. The respondent though alleged that the petitioner was a habitual drunker but to that effect there is no scrap of evidence. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner used to maintain illicit relation with Malini Debbarma but that allegation has not been proved by the respondent. The relationship between husband and wife is as relationship of trust and confidence. One cannot be expected to blame the other about character without basis. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner used to maintain illicit relation with Malini Debbarma but that allegation has not been proved by the respondent. The relationship between husband and wife is as relationship of trust and confidence. One cannot be expected to blame the other about character without basis. Merely moving with a person of opposite sex cannot be designed as an illicit relation of a spouse. The petitioner stated that on some occasions he had given lift to the sister of his friend who was a police constable. The respondent made no statement that the petitioner was found in a position with that Malini Debbarma which would infer to some sorts of illicit relation. Mere suspicion will only spoil and destroy the matrimonial confidence of trust and belief between the spouse which has happened in the case of the present petitioner and the respondent. The respondent has made baseless allegation of illicit relation of the petitioner with one Malini Debbarma and in our considered opinion that amounts to a matrimonial offence of cruelty exercised by the respondent on the petitioner and on that ground the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce as prayed for. 30. The petitioner further alleged that from 25.04.2007 he has no physical relation with the respondent, however, he has stated nothing in his deposition to that effect. Respondent in her pleadings stated that she left the matrimonial home in the month of November, 2007 but after reconciliation in June, 2008 she was taken back to the rented house of the respondent. She left that house in July, 2008. She also stated that after 4/5 months she was again taken back to the rented house of the petitioner at Dhaleswar in the house of one Rabindra Baidya and there they lived only 15 days. It is, therefore, evident that at least from the year 2008 matrimonial relation between the petitioner and the respondent has ceased. It shows that there exists gross distrust in the relation between the petitioner and the respondent. Because of their separation for last 6(six) years, the matrimonial relation appears to have irretrievably broken. It is, therefore, evident that at least from the year 2008 matrimonial relation between the petitioner and the respondent has ceased. It shows that there exists gross distrust in the relation between the petitioner and the respondent. Because of their separation for last 6(six) years, the matrimonial relation appears to have irretrievably broken. Irretrievable break down of the matrimonial relation itself is not a ground for divorce but while the respondent is responsible for such breaking down of matrimonial relation, it shall be considered as a ground of exercise of cruelty on the other spouse and on that ground also, the marital relation may be dissolved by a decree of divorce. 31. In view of the discussions made above, we are of considered opinion that the learned Judge, Family Court has failed to consider the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record in its proper perspective and consequently arrived at a perverse finding. The judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, therefore, is liable to be interfered and accordingly, we set it aside. 32. The petition filed by the petitioner seeking divorce is allowed. The Hindu marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 07.03.1995 is hereby dissolved. 33. Parties to bear their own costs. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.

Jayanta Nandi v. Shipra Karmakar (Nandi)