JUDGMENT : Prasanta Kumar Saikia, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.07.2013, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Kamrup, Guwahati in FC (Civil) No. 174/2007, dismissing the case seeking dissolution of marriage of the appellant therein with the respondent on the ground of cruelty. We have heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B.K. Jain, Mr. S. Sarma, Ms. M. Dasgupta and Ms. I. Singha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.J. Bordoloi, Mr. P.K. Talukdar, Mr. T. Baruah and Mr. R. Ali learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The brief facts, necessary, for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as husband/petitioner) filed aforesaid proceeding before the Family Court at Kamrup, Guwahati contending that he married the respondent (hereinafter referred to as wife/opposite party) on 02.12.99 according to Hindu rites and rituals. However, such marriage ran into rough weather. 3. In 2001, the petitioner got him transferred to Hyderabad. His wife too who is a Central Govt. employee joined him soon thereafter. Out of their wedlock two children were born to them. But right from the day one of their marriage lives, the respondent treated the petitioner quite shabbily and kept on insulting him on slightest pretext and in doing so, she always got encouragement from her mother. 4. In 2005, the respondent/wife developed some gynecological problems. Though the husband/petitioner offered to take his wife to Doctor, the wife refused such request and instead went to Doctor along with one neighbouring lady taking both the children with her. When his wife did not return home in time, he made enquiry and came to know that his wife had left for Delhi along with her two children. 5. In the meantime, the respondent was transferred to Guwahati. In response to such transfer order, the respondent joined her new assignment at Maligaon, Guwahati. However, the petitioner requested his wife to come to her matrimonial house as and when her work schedule permits the same. Since the respondent did not visit her matrimonial home once she joined at Maligaon, Guwahati, the petitioner came to Guwahati on 25.12.2005 to see his wife and children. 6. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not allowed to meet his children. However, the petitioner requested his wife to come to her matrimonial house as and when her work schedule permits the same. Since the respondent did not visit her matrimonial home once she joined at Maligaon, Guwahati, the petitioner came to Guwahati on 25.12.2005 to see his wife and children. 6. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not allowed to meet his children. Rather he was manhandled by the respondent and her family members with further directions to leave Guwahati as early as possible if he does not want more and more embarrassment in those circumstances, he had to leave Guwahati without even seeing his children. 7. According to the petitioner, the behavior of the respondent was so rude and bad that it was no longer possible for the petitioner to live with her even with minimum prestige. In other words, the torture perpetuated on him by the respondent makes it wholly impossible for the petitioner to live with his wife. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the proceeding in question seeking a decree dissolving his marriage with his wife. 8. The respondent (wife) being served with notice entered appearance and had filed written statement. In her written statement, she contested the claim of the husband/petitioner alleging that the claim of her ill-treating the petitioner is a false and fabricated one since at no point of time, she ill treated her husband. Quite contrary to it, it is her husband who ill treated her most of the times. 9. In that connection, it has been stated that while the respondent was pregnant, she was not given proper food and was not given proper cloth in winter season. Even after the birth of her children, she was not given proper medical care. Worse still, the petitioner never cares to provide his children necessary education and other facilities which is nothing but great proof of the wife/respondent as well as their children being treated with cruelty of enormous proportion. 10. It is also her case that her husband spent money lavishly on another woman with whom he maintained extramarital relationship. In order to meet his expenses which he had to incur to maintain his extramarital relationship, the petitioner regularly demanded respondent to give the salary which the respondent earned as school teacher. Therefore, she prays that proceeding aforesaid was to be dismissed with cost. 11. In order to meet his expenses which he had to incur to maintain his extramarital relationship, the petitioner regularly demanded respondent to give the salary which the respondent earned as school teacher. Therefore, she prays that proceeding aforesaid was to be dismissed with cost. 11. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed- 1. Whether the opposite party 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? 12. Both the parties had adduced evidence in support of their respective pleas. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Judge was pleased to reject the contention of the petitioner/husband and therefore, she was also pleased to dismiss the proceeding vide judgment dated 29.07.2013 which is questioned in this present appeal alleging that such a judgment was rendered not on the basis of materials on record nor was it rendered on the basis of law holding the field. 13. We have considered the rival submissions, advanced by the learned counsel for parties, having regard to the materials on record and the law holding the field in question. 14. Referring to the written statement of the wife/opposite party, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in her written statement, the opposite party contends that the petitioner has been maintaining illicit relationship with someone. But then, she never cares to substantiate such allegation. Raising a plea of infidelity without same being substantiated is fatal since the spouse against whom such unsubstantiated plea of infidelity is leveled, is entitled to a decree dissolving marriage between such parties as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate Vs. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 334 . 15. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate (Supra), the wife filed a case seeking a decree of divorce from her husband. The husband in his WS alleged that his wife maintains extramarital relationship with someone but he failed to substantiate the same. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 334 . 15. In Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate (Supra), the wife filed a case seeking a decree of divorce from her husband. The husband in his WS alleged that his wife maintains extramarital relationship with someone but he failed to substantiate the same. On such facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties holding as follows:- "The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a)of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible." 16. Similar view has been rendered by Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Mahesh Ganpat Paigude Vs. Sau Mohini Mahesh Paigude in Family Court Appeal No. 131 of 2006. 17. Similar view has been rendered by Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Mahesh Ganpat Paigude Vs. Sau Mohini Mahesh Paigude in Family Court Appeal No. 131 of 2006. 17. In Shri Mahesh Ganpat Paigude (Supra), the husband filed a divorce proceeding seeking dissolution of marriage with his wife. The wife resisted such proceeding alleging, amongst other things, that the husband maintains extramarital relationship with someone but she failed to substantiate the same. On such facts, Hon'ble Bombay High Court following the decision rendered in Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate (Supra) granted a decree of divorce holding that if any of the spouses makes an allegation of infidelity against the other without caring to substantiate the same, such a failure would give the spouse, affected by such unsubstantiated allegation, a right to seek a decree of divorce. The relevant parts of the judgment are as follows:- 14. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate V. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate and in particular paragraph 7 thereof. Paragraph 7 reads thus: 7. Leveling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship constitutes grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible." 15. In the facts of the case before the Apex Court, unsubstantiated allegations were made by the husband against the wife. An application made by the husband for amendment of the pleadings for deletion of the said allegations was allowed. The Apex Court held that the said amendment does not absolve the husband from being held liable for having treated the wife with cruelty by making earlier such injurious reproaches and statements. In paragraph 11, the Apex Court has observed thus: "That apart, even the fact that the application for amendments carried out subsequently does not absolve the husband in this case, from being held making earlier such injurious reproaches and statements, due to their impact when made and continued to remain on record. To satisfy the requirement of clause (ia) of sub-section (1) of Section of the Act, it is not as though the cruel treatment for any particular duration of period has been statutorily stipulated to be necessary. As to what constitutes the required mental cruelty for purposes of the said provision, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct, but really goes by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home. If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the courts perhaps need to consider the further question as to whether their continuance or persistence over a period to time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonably conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer. A conscious and deliberate statement leveled with pungency and that too placed on record, through the written statement, cannot so lightly be ignored or brushed aside, to be of no consequence merely because it came to be removed from the record only. The allegations leveled and the incidents enumerated in the case on hand, apart from they being per se cruel in nature, on their own also constitute an admission of the fact that for quite some time in the past the husband had been persistently indulging in them, unrelented and unmindful of their impact. That the husband in this case has treated the wife with intense cruelty is a fact, which became a fait accompli the day they were made in the written statement. They continued on record at any rate till the carrying of the amendment of the written statement and the indelible impact and scar they initially would have created, cannot be said to have got ipso facto dissolved, with the amendments ordered. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the courts below placing reliance on the said conduct of the Appellant, in this regard, to record a finding against him. 16. At this stage, a reference to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Laxman Sonawane Vs. Meenaxi Ramesh Sonawane is necessary. This was a case where the Division Bench was dealing with an Appeal preferred by the husband. The husband had filed a petition seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. One of the grounds pressed into service by the husband was the unsubstantiated allegation made by the wife that he was having extramarital relationship. The Division Bench relied upon the aforesaid decision in the case of Vijaykumar (Supra). In paragraph 4.1, the Division Bench has made a specific reference to the said decision. The Division Bench held that making such unsubstantiated allegations amounts to causing mental cruelty to the husband. 17. The Division Bench relied upon the aforesaid decision in the case of Vijaykumar (Supra). In paragraph 4.1, the Division Bench has made a specific reference to the said decision. The Division Bench held that making such unsubstantiated allegations amounts to causing mental cruelty to the husband. 17. Therefore, we have no manner of doubt that unsubstantiated allegations made by the Respondent wife in paragraph 6 of the written statement amount to assault on character and reputation of the Appellant and the same constitutes a mental cruelty which entitles the Appellant to claim a decree of divorce under Clause (ia) of the said Act." 18. In our present proceeding, we have found that the wife had alleged in her written statement that the husband maintains extra marital relationship, but she did not care to substantiate the same. Therefore, in terms of law laid down in Vijay Kumar Ramchandra Bhate (Supra), in our considered view, wife's raising an allegation of infidelity against her husband without substantiating the same, gives the husband/petitioner a right to get a decree of divorce. 19. Since the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on that count above, we are not inclined to probe other allegations leveled against the wife/opposite party. 20. Being so, we have found that the judgment in question under which the learned Family court chose to dismiss the proceeding is unsustainable and same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 21. Accordingly, the judgment aforesaid stands quashed and set aside allowing the proceeding by the husband seeking a decree of divorce. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the decree prayed for is granted and consequently, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved. 23. The wife/respondent, if so advised, may file separate proceeding for permanent alimony. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Return the LCR.