JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- This matrimonial appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and decree of divorce dated 23.03.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura in Case No. T.S. (Divorce) 02 of 1996. The respondent herein, as the petitioner, (hereinafter mentioned as 'wife-petitioner') set the law in motion presenting an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized between her and her husband, the appellant herein (hereinafter mentioned as husband-respondent), which was solemnized on 26.02.1993, correspondents to 14th of Falgoon 1399 B.S., as per Hindu rites in the parental home of the wife-petitioner. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee for the appellant (husband-respondent) and learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the respondent (wife-petitioner). 2. It is an undisputed rather an admitted fact that a Hindu Marriage was solemnized between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband on 26.02.1993 corresponding to 14th Falgoon, 1399 B.S., as per Hindu Customary rites and ceremonies and the marriage ceremony was performed in the parental house of the wife-petitioner. It is also an undisputed fact that after the marriage, the wife-petitioner and the respondent-husband lived together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home i.e. in the parental home of the husband at Ratiabari (Kumarghat) as well as at the place of posting of the husband-respondent at Kanchanpur and out of their wedlock, two girl children were born. The first one was born on 26.12.1993 namely, Mani alias Paramita Das and the second one was born on 24.04.1995 namely, Moon Das. Both the children were born at Kailashahar hospital and it is an admitted fact that for a few months before the birth of the children, the wife-petitioner had been residing in the house of her parents. 3. The petitioner alleged matrimonial dispute and difference from the very inception of marriage. She inter alia alleged that she found an unhealthy atmosphere in the matrimonial home as her husband and other members of the matrimonial home often used to quarrel among themselves and would use vulgar language etc. 3. The petitioner alleged matrimonial dispute and difference from the very inception of marriage. She inter alia alleged that she found an unhealthy atmosphere in the matrimonial home as her husband and other members of the matrimonial home often used to quarrel among themselves and would use vulgar language etc. She also alleged that her husband while living at Kanchanpur treated her with mental cruelty and when she got pregnant, she was left in the house of her parents and he did not take any care or attention during the period of pregnancy as well as when she was hospitalized for delivery of the child. She has also alleged that her husband did not pay a single farthing towards the expenses incurred during her treatment and delivery of the child and that all the expenditure were borne by her parental family. It is also alleged by the wife-petitioner that a few months after the birth of the first child, she was taken back by her husband to Kanchanpur and within a short period of time, she was again made pregnant though her health was not fit to had the second pregnancy within such short period of time. However, when she fell ill her husband again left her in her parental home and as before did not take any care during the pregnancy period as well as at the time of delivery of second child. All expenditure were borne by her father and brother. She has also alleged that on 10.06.1995 her husband came to her parental home and wanted to take her back to Kanchanpur on the following day itself. On 11.06.1995 in the early morning, her husband directed her to get ready at once with the children to leave for Kanchanpur, but she requested her husband to wait for some time since their infant children were to get ready for taking them to Kanchanpur. But her husband was so impassionate that he was not at all ready to give any time and started assaulting her physically. When her father, brothers and other family members interfered, they were also beaten by the respondent-husband by fists and blows causing injuries and thereafter, while hearing their cry, the neighbourers came, her husband left the house. But her husband was so impassionate that he was not at all ready to give any time and started assaulting her physically. When her father, brothers and other family members interfered, they were also beaten by the respondent-husband by fists and blows causing injuries and thereafter, while hearing their cry, the neighbourers came, her husband left the house. Immediately thereafter, they reported the matter to Kailashahar P.S. and the G.D. Entry No. 492 dated 11.06.1995 was made at P.S. They were also treated for the injuries sustained at hospital. Thereafter, the husband-respondent never taken any care of the petitioner-wife and her children and treated them with extreme cruelty and therefore, the petitioner-wife prayed for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce. She also prayed for alimony. 4. The husband-respondent contested the case by filing written statement inter alia stating that the father of the wife-petitioner is a critical, greedy and litigious person and other family members also were of same nature and character. They tried to pursue the respondent-husband to leave her parental home and to construct a house in a portion of the house of the petitioner's father and to live there which the respondent-husband refused. The father of the petitioner and her brothers pursued the petitioner to influence the respondent-husband to agree to the proposal, but the respondent-husband refused and therefore, the matrimonial discord started. There was no dispute or difference between the husband and wife and they had been living a peaceful conjugal life, but the position deteriorated when the father and other members of the paternal family were consistently trying to influence the conjugal life of the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband. It is also alleged by the respondent-husband that the father of the petitioner had no good relation with his neighbourers and he prepared a list of his neighbourers and handed over the list to the petitioner to find out some "Kabiraj" from Kanchanpur to cause harm to those neighbourers and that was refused by the respondent-husband. As a result, father of the petitioner and her brothers were enraged on the respondent-husband. He has also alleged that for better matrimonial care and treatment before the birth of the child, the petitioner-wife was sent to her parental home and all expenditure of treatment and delivery of child were borne by the respondent-husband. As a result, father of the petitioner and her brothers were enraged on the respondent-husband. He has also alleged that for better matrimonial care and treatment before the birth of the child, the petitioner-wife was sent to her parental home and all expenditure of treatment and delivery of child were borne by the respondent-husband. He has also stated that on holidays and on other occasions, he visited the petitioner-wife and their children in the parental home of the petitioner-wife. On 10.06.1995, he went to the parental home of the petitioner-wife to take her back with the children, but the petitioner at the instance of her father and brothers ill treated him and thereafter, all of them beaten out him from the house for which he went to Kailashahar P.S. and made G.D. Entry No. 497 dated 11.06.1995. It is further stated by the respondent-husband that he is still keen to live together with the petitioner-wife and to move forward a smooth matrimonial life. The petitioner-wife is not allowing him even to see their children and thereby, they have rather exercised cruelty on the respondent-husband. He has also claimed that the petitioner-wife must return to the matrimonial home and live together and he denied all other allegations made in the petition of the petitioner-wife seeking divorce. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties framed following issues:-- ISSUES 1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form? 2. Is there any cause of action of filing the suit? 3. Is the claim barred by waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? 4. Whether there was any cruelty on the part of the respondent Shri Dibyendu Das? 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of Divorce or dissolution of marriage tie between the petitioner and the respondent? 6. To what other reliefs the parties entitled? 6. In course of trial, the petitioner-wife examined herself as P.W. 1 and also examined two more witnesses namely, P.W. 2 Debabrata Deb, elder brother of the petitioner-wife, P.W. 3 Maya Deb, an aunt of the petitioner-wife. Respondent-husband examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined two more witnesses namely, D.W. 2, Amulya Ch. Das, a close friend of the respondent and D.W. 3, Pramath Das, a neighbour of the respondent-husband. Respondent-husband examined himself as P.W. 1 and also examined two more witnesses namely, D.W. 2, Amulya Ch. Das, a close friend of the respondent and D.W. 3, Pramath Das, a neighbour of the respondent-husband. The petitioner-wife also brought on record some letters written by the respondent-husband to her father and her other relatives and also placed a copy of the G.D. Entry made on 11.06.1995 and some prescriptions in respect of the treatment and those are marked as Exbt. 1 series, Exbt. 2 and 3 series respectively. 7. The Trial Judge considering the evidence on record decreed the suit and directed dissolution of marriage. 8. Hence, this appeal. 9. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that what is alleged about cruelty by the petitioner-wife are nothing, but ordinary wear and tear of the family life which may be ignored and the matrimonial relation may be restored. It is contended by Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel that the parties have two daughters and for the sake of better future of the children, the matrimonial relation should continue as otherwise, the interest of the children will be in peril in future. The Trial Court committed a mistake in granting the divorce and hence, the decree should be set aside. 10. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman countering the submission of the learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty has submitted that matrimonial relation has irretrievably broken down. It is more than 19 years that there is no relation between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent-husband not only physically assaulted the petitioner in her matrimonial home, but also wrote vulgar letters to the father of the petitioner and other relatives which are exhibited and those shows the mental state of the respondent-husband how he treated the petitioner-wife in the matrimonial home and under such circumstances, the decree of divorce has been rightly passed by the Trial Court which does not deserve interference in appeal. 11. 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. 11. 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 summaries 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. If the relationship and mutual obligation to each other goes, there remains nothing to keep the matrimonial tie alive. 13. 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 behavioral indiscretion by way of cruelty must be on the part of the respondent. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.G. Dastane v. 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. 15. The petitioner examined herself and her brother and an aunt in support of her contention that on 11.06.1995, the respondent beaten her and when her father and other members of the family interfered, they were also beaten up by the respondent and thereby, the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty. She has also alleged that the respondent wrote vulgar letters with filthy languages to her father and relatives. Her contention supported by the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and Exbt. 1 series. She has also alleged that the respondent wrote vulgar letters with filthy languages to her father and relatives. Her contention supported by the oral evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and Exbt. 1 series. Her further contention that the matter was reported to the P.S. as also been established by Exbt. 2, the copy of the G.D. Entry. Respondent-husband admitted that there was an incident on 11.06.1995 when he wanted to take back his wife and children to his house. He alleged that he was assaulted by the father and other members of the petitioner's parental home. In support of his contention, the respondent adduced no other item of evidence. Even no copy of the G.D. Entry alleged to have made by the respondent brought on record. Under such circumstances, the allegation of the respondent that he was beaten up by the father and other members of the petitioner's parental family is found to have not established by the Trial Court which in our opinion was a correct decision. 16. The petitioner though alleged that she was ill treated while living with the respondent during the period of their married life, except her own statement, there is no other corroborating evidence. So, the Trial Court only taken to consideration the matrimonial offence committed by the respondent-husband on 11.06.1995 and the vulgar letters written by him to the father of the petitioner and other relatives. Exercise of cruelty on a single occasion, may create an impression in the mind of a spouse that it is not safe to continue matrimonial life with the other spouse. There is nothing in law that there must be repetition of similar occasions or various occasions of exercise of cruelty to arrive at a conclusion. We cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that the incident occurred on 11.06.1995 alone cannot be sufficient for the wife petitioner to arrive at a conclusion that continuance of matrimonial relation between the wife-petitioner and respondent-husband was not safe. Obviously, attempts were taken what is also admitted by the respondent-husband for reconciliation. All attempts failed. Record shows that this Court also made an attempt calling both the parties for a settlement, but the attempt failed. For last about 19 years, there is no relation between the husband and wife except the thread of marital bond. 17. Obviously, attempts were taken what is also admitted by the respondent-husband for reconciliation. All attempts failed. Record shows that this Court also made an attempt calling both the parties for a settlement, but the attempt failed. For last about 19 years, there is no relation between the husband and wife except the thread of marital bond. 17. The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Smti. Bhulu Rani Dey (Das) v. Rabi Dey reported in AIR 2012 Gauhati 128 (in which one of us Das, J. was in the Bench), almost in similar circumstances considered that irretrievable breakdown of marriage even though cannot be availed of as a ground wholly for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but continuance of such category of marriage inflicts the spouse with cruelty within the meaning of Section13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. We may gainfully refer here Para 20 and 23 of the judgment which reads as follows:-- 20. In V. Bhagat ( AIR 1994 SC 710 ) (supra), the Apex Court has approved the ratio as laid down in Sheldon v. Sheldon (1966) 2 ALL ER 257) that "the categories of cruelty are not closed. Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of. Such is the wonder realm of cruelty." In the considered opinion of this Court that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage even though cannot be availed of as a ground directly for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but continuance of such category of marriage inflicts the spouse with cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and it constitutes 'cruelty' attributable to the spouse who resisted the prayer for granting divorce. Agony of the breakdown of marriage cannot be excluded from the realm and category of cruelty. 23. From the conduct of the appellant, it is apparent that she had forsaken the marital relation. Agony of the breakdown of marriage cannot be excluded from the realm and category of cruelty. 23. From the conduct of the appellant, it is apparent that she had forsaken the marital relation. Despite interventions of the well-wishers on several occasions the fractured relation could not be put together and the discord continued unabated., No doubt, these indicators do well establish the 'breakdown' principle and thereby a new category of cruelty against the respondent, who complained of against the appellant for grinding the relation in tatters by her conducts, has been well established. Even if the irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be availed of as the ground for seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but this Court is of the opinion that the same can be availed of as cruelty within the meaning of the said provision if it is demonstrated that continuance of such 'dead' marriage perpetrates insurmountable agony. As such, the impugned decree of divorce as passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage even though is not affirmed by this Court, but this Court finds that irretrievable breakdown of marriage for the conduct of the appellant has been well proved and it has been demonstrated that the respondent has been continuously suffering 'cruelty' for continuance of such shattered or dead marriage. 18. The petitioner-wife brought on record Exbt. 1 series which are vulgar letters written by the respondent to the father and other relatives of the petitioner-wife. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 has considered such writing of vulgar letters as a piece of cruelty exercised on the other spouse. We may gainfully refer here Para 29 to 33 of the judgment which reads as follows:-- 29. In our opinion, the High Court wrongly held that because the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife did not stay together there is no question of the parties causing cruelty to each other. Staying together under the same roof is not a precondition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. Staying together under the same roof is not a precondition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life miserable. This is what has happened in this case. 30. It is also to be noted that the appellant-husband and the respondent- wife are staying apart from 27-4-1999. Thus, they are living separately for more than ten years. This separation has created an unbridgeable distance between the two. As held in Samar Ghosh (Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 ), if we refuse to sever the tie, it may lead to mental cruelty. 31. We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court's verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court's decree. 32. In V. Bhagat (V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 ) this Court noted that divorce petition was pending for eight years and a good part of the lives of both the parties had been consumed in litigation, yet the end was not in sight. The facts were such that there was no question of reunion, the marriage having irretrievably broken down. While dissolving the marriage on the ground of mental cruelty this Court observed that: (SCC p. 351, para. 21) 21. ...Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground by itself. The facts were such that there was no question of reunion, the marriage having irretrievably broken down. While dissolving the marriage on the ground of mental cruelty this Court observed that: (SCC p. 351, para. 21) 21. ...Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground by itself. But, while scrutinizing the evidence on record to determine whether the grounds alleged are made out and in determining the relief to be granted, the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind. 33. In Naveen Kohli (Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 , where the husband and wife had been living separately for more than 10 years and a large number of criminal proceedings had been initiated by the wife against the husband, the Court observed that: (SCC p. 582 para. 86) 86. ...The marriage had been wrecked beyond the hope of salvage [and] public interest and interest of all concerned lies in the recognition of the fact and to declare defunct de jure what is already defunct de facto. It is important to note that in Naveen Kohli case (Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558 ) this Court made a recommendation to the Union of India that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be amended to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce. 19. Marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 26.06.1993. They lived together as husband and wife till 11.06.1995. From 11.06.1995 till today, there is no conjugal relation between them. Efforts taken for reconciliation failed. Such continuous separate living of both the spouse, having not exercised any matrimonial right and obligation by either of the spouse, amounts to cruelty by one on the other. Here the wife-petitioner approached the Court for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty which since is found to have established, we find no merit in the appeal. The submission of learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that looking to the future of the children, the decree of divorce may be set aside cannot be accepted as a good ground to accept the appeal. 20. We find no merit in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Parties are to bear their own cost. Send back the L.C. record along with a copy of this