JUDGMENT : This is an appeal arising out of Matrimonial Suit No.127 of 2010 filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The suit was preferred by the appellant wife Smt. Anindita Mitra averring that the marriage with the respondent husband was a negotiated one and it was solemnised on 7th August, 1999 in Kolkata as per the Hindu rites and customs. Her husband was a businessman. The family of the husband consisted of eight sisters and two brothers out of those, four sisters were married and the remaining four sisters and two brothers were unmarried. It was stated that immediately after the next day of marriage, all the gift items and stridhan properties given by her relatives and family members were taken away by her in-laws. In "Boubhat Ceremony" number of guests were invited, who also presented various gifts including some gold ornaments also. These were taken away by one of the sisters-in-law and the appellant wife was left only with one pair of small gold earring. These gift items and ornaments as well as her stridhan were kept by the mother-in-law in her custody excepting one necklace and one pair of earring and two golden churies. She was shocked by the conduct of the family members of her husband respondent but could not say anything as she was newly married in the family. Even her husband had not supported her in any manner rather than give to support in this regard to his family members without considering the desires and effect of such conduct of his family members. 2. Gradually, the conduct of the family members started taking a turn towards mental and physical torture to her. Even the maidservant of the house was removed. The appellant was a working lady and came home at about 7 p.m. and she was made to cook food for all the family members of the respondent husband. However, the food she was served by her sister-in-laws was not edible and sometime she found bugs and spiders in her food. Whenever she raised protest, there was no support from the side of her husband and her brother-in-law compelled her to have such food. However, the food she was served by her sister-in-laws was not edible and sometime she found bugs and spiders in her food. Whenever she raised protest, there was no support from the side of her husband and her brother-in-law compelled her to have such food. Not only this, she found that the attitude of the younger brother of her husband was "a bit otherwise", during the absence of the respondent husband the brother-in-law used to enter the room of the petitioner appellant and exposed his ill motive. However, in spite of repeatedly being informed of all these incidents the respondent did not say anything to his brother and the latter continued to commit obscenity and harass the appellant. 3. The appellant also alleged that on one occasion when she was in the matrimonial home, an altercation took place between her husband and the younger brother-in-law which went to such an extent that the younger brother-in-law locked himself inside the room and did not open it for a considerable long period of time. Ultimately when she persuaded him to come out from the room, he embraced her and uttered "ami tomake bhalobasi". She was surprised and shocked but none of the members of the family including the mother-in-law and her husband, said anything to the younger brother. She was mentally perturbed with this incident and she went back to her room; when she asked the respondent as to why he did not say anything to his brother for his said misbehaviour, he kept silence. 4. The grievance of the appellant wife from the plaint appears to be that she was made to bear mental and physical torture when she refused to hand over her full salary to the family every month. It also appears from the plaint that she was also inflicted torture in various ways at the behest of the respondent husband, his mother, and sisters. She was not leading a happy conjugal life as her husband mostly remained out of the house; that the husband and his family members used to pick up quarrel with her making silly and adverse comments against her and her family members, expressing that they are not satisfied with the presentations given by her parents in marriage and pressurised her to bring money from her parents house. She was also subjected to mental torture by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law for not fulfilling their illegal demands. In her evidence led before the trial Judge, the wife appellant reiterated all these incidents mental torture on her by the husband and his family members. Her brother also entered into the witness box as PW-2 stating that all her gifts and ornaments were taken by her in-laws. 5. The husband in support of his defence case entered the witness box. In the cross-examination he candidly said that in case the wife returns the gifted items, he is ready to give her divorce. The said statement of the respondent husband in his cross-examination reads thus: "The respondent further admitted that he was ready to return back all the belongings of the Petitioner subject to return of his gold ornaments lying with the Petitioner. The aforesaid facts and circumstances indicate that the allegations of the Petitioner of taking away all the presentations and gifts including gold ornaments and cash by the family members of the Respondent are not at all baseless allegations." 6. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit of the wife holding that the wife had failed to prove her case that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty or torture for which a marital tie should not be broken down and that the petitioner had already left her matrimonial house. The learned Trial Judge further held that the petitioner since even after leaving the matrimonial home, along with her husband went to visit a book fair and the husband went to the parents' house of the wife and also stayed there, for one day, the petitioner wife had condoned the husband and his family members for his atrocities caused upon her. The relevant findings of the court in this regard reads thus: "Since admittedly the Petitioner and the Respondent have been living separately on and from 23.01.2005 due to a bitter relationship with each other and there is no chance of revival of good relationship, it should be reasonably presumed that the marital relationsiip has been irrerievably broken down and thereby the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce. … "After considering the materials on record and after hearing the submissions made by both the parties I am of the view that the Petitioner has failed to prove her case that she was subjected to such mental and physical cruelty for which a marital tie should be broken down. Apart from that it appears that the Petitioner voluntarily left her matrimonial home and thereafter the Petitioner and the Respondent again went together to visit book fair and Respondent visited her parents' house on other occasions and also stayed there. Thus on basis of another Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1999) 7 SCC 311 it can be observed that even if there was any sort of cruelty as alleged by the Petitioner, the same was condoned by the Petitioner. "Thus the Issue No.2 is decided against the Petitioner. Issue Nos.2 and 4 are consequential to the decision of Issue No.2 and thereby the said issues are also decided against the Petitioner. "In my opinion the Petitioner/wife has not been able to prove her case and she is not entitled to get a decree. "C.F. paid is correct. ORDERED "That the Matrimonial Suit be and the same is decreed- penned through) dismissed and contest but without any order of costs." 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings the petitioner wife has been preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned therein. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge are patently erroneous inasmuch as that the court below has failed to consider the case of the plaintiff wife in its proper perspective. He further submitted that the husband and wife are now living separately for about ten years and, therefore, not only the learned Trial Court has failed in appreciating the evidence of the parties but has also imagined the fact that the wife had condoned the cruelty/atrocities committed by the husband and his family members when on one occasion she went to the Book Fair with her husband and the husband had also stayed a night at his inlaws house with the appellant 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the husband has strenuously argued that the mental and physical torture alleged by the wife is only against the family members of the husband and there is no allegation against appellant husband of committing any such act on the wife. Per contra, learned counsel for the husband has strenuously argued that the mental and physical torture alleged by the wife is only against the family members of the husband and there is no allegation against appellant husband of committing any such act on the wife. Therefore, there was neither any break down of marriage nor there was any ground under the Hindu Marriage Act for the learned Judge to have decided a suit in favour of the wife simply for the reason that the husband did not commit any cruelty or given her mental and physical torture. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record we find that the husband was a silent spectator to all the atrocities made upon the wife by his family members including his brother, sisters and mother. They had not only taken away her stridhan but had also kept in the gold and other precious gift items given to her in the marriage by her relatives and family members. We find an incident when the younger brother of the husband had embraced the wife (Boudi) appellant saying "ami tomake bhalobasi" which put to her shocked state of mind. His ill motives and expressions of vulgarity shown in so many ways on other various occasions was not tolerable to her and she was given unhygenic and inadequate food from time to time by the members of her in-laws which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home and to go to her mother's house. The husband even at that time did not protest against the conduct of his family members towards his wife. 11. Admittedly, out of her own money the appellant wife had purchased Television, fridge, audio system, utensils and other articles which are all lying with the respondent husband. 12. The husband and the wife have also appeared before us today. We have put searching questions to them. The husband does not deny that he had in his cross-examination stated that he is willingly give divorce his wife. Neither the brother nor the sisters or the mother were produced as an witness by the husband before the learned Trial Judge to deny the allegations made by the appellant wife against them even to the extent of giving her inedible food. Neither the brother nor the sisters or the mother were produced as an witness by the husband before the learned Trial Judge to deny the allegations made by the appellant wife against them even to the extent of giving her inedible food. The appellant wife before us refused to go back to the matrimonial house because she felt so insecure there. 13. The learned Trial Court has though recorded a finding that the allegations of the wife are not baseless, yet in the impugned judgment concluded that the wife has failed to make out a case of any physical or mental torture by the husband and his other family members or there was any occasion for which the marital tie should be broken down. 14. The question of mental cruelty has been considered by the Apex Court in (2002) 5 SCC 706 (Parveen Mehta v. Indrajit Mehta) wherein the Supreme Court had occasion to consider as to what constitutes of mental cruelty and whether it is a ground of divorce. The Supreme Court, in the aforesaid case, held that "mental cruelty was a state of mind and feelings and is therefore necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn in the facts and circumstances of each case. The proper approach, therefore, requires for assessment in the cumulative effect of the attending facts and circumstances established by the evidence on record. Only then an inference can be drawn that the person claiming cruelty can be said has been mode to suffer mental cruelty by the spouse. However, the Court hastened to add that individual instances of misbehaviour seen in isolation would not be sufficient to establish mental cruelty and that mental cruelty would be the result of extreme stubborn attitude, and/or inexplicable and reasonable conduct on the part of the spouse repeatedly causing of embarrassment in social situations is also amounts to cruelty. 15. Paragraph 21 of the judgment (Supra) reads such: "Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour 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. 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. 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 misbehaviour 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." 16. In the plaint, as also in her affidavit-in chief the appellant wife categorically stated that the family members of the respondent husband, comprising of his brother, four unmarried sisters and mother subjected her to mental shock and trauma before she used to leave for office. She had to go to the office without taking bath and food and one of the sisters of the respondent, namely, Sandhya Mitra used to make baseless comments against her character without any reason. As stated earlier, neither the brother, nor any of the sisters, nor the mother of the respondent husband came before the learned Trial Judge to refute the allegations made against them and in spite thereof the learned Court below held that the appellant petitioner failed to prove that she was subjected to cruelty. 17. In the facts of this case the said finding of the learned Trial Judge is vitiated by patent error of law and cannot be sustained. There is also no denying of the fact that the mother-in-law kept all her gift items and the ornaments as well as stridhan of the appellant wife which has not been disputed by the respondent defendant husband before us. 18. There is also no denying of the fact that the mother-in-law kept all her gift items and the ornaments as well as stridhan of the appellant wife which has not been disputed by the respondent defendant husband before us. 18. Specific allegations were made by the appellant in her plaint and in her evidence which have not been rebutted by the respondent husband through evidence. 19. In paragraph 14 of her affidavit-in-chief, the petitioner appellant categorically stated that the respondent is a cruel, arrogant and unsympathetic husband having no love and affection for her and have made her life totally miserable and insecured and as such, finding no other way she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 23.01.2005. From the records it is clear that there was no cross-examination of the petitioner appellant on those statements and not even a suggestion was put to the petitioner appellant disputing the correctness of her said statements. Therefore, in these facts, we find that the learned Trial Judge was in error to hold that the petitioner voluntarily left her matrimonial home. 20. We have also noted the conduct of the husband that not even once he had either written or gone to take back his wife or console her that he will live with her or restrain his family members from doing anything embarrassing. 21. Once again in paragraph 16 of her affidavit-in-chief the appellant petitioner stated that she has not condoned the acts of cruelty perpetrated upon her. In her cross-examination no question, not even a suggestion was put to the appellant wife, disputing the said statement. Thus, the learned Court below once again fell in an error of law is holding that the petitioner had condoned the acts of cruelty committed by the respondent and his mother, brother and sisters. 22. We, therefore, find that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are perverse and against the materials on record and evidence, and the same cannot be sustained particularly in view of the admitted facts of the case that the wife had filed a suit for divorce and husband, in his cross-examination, had showed his inclination to give the wife divorce. 23. For all the above reasons, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Court dismissing the suit, being Mat Suit No. 1386 of 2005 is set aside. 23. For all the above reasons, the appeal stands allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Court dismissing the suit, being Mat Suit No. 1386 of 2005 is set aside. A decree for divorce is now passed dissolving the marriage between the parties to the appeal. Accordingly, let the decree for divorce be drawn up expeditiously. 24. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.