JUDGMENT : Shaffique, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the respondent in OP No.1230/2010 challenging judgment dated 30/4/2014 by which the Family Court granted a decree for divorce dissolving the marriage solemnized between the appellant and respondent and dismissing the counter claim filed for restitution of conjugal rights. 2. The short facts arising in the matter are as under and the parties are referred to as shown in the original petition unless otherwise stated. 3. The marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized on 7/9/2003. A male child Advaith was born to them on 16/4/2007. Petitioner contended that prior to marriage, respondent projected herself to be a warm and affectionate person with an adjustable nature. But, after marriage, his life became full of miseries on account of her abnormal conduct and behaviour. According to him, she turned into a sluggish, brooding and quarrelsome person bothering the petitioner all the time. Her attitude showed having complexes and over possessiveness. She always had a doubt that the petitioner was getting friendly with females. She was always nagging, criticizing and accusing the petitioner. She used to check all his movements everyday, his e-mail, mobile phone calls, bag, purse, papers and all personal belongings. All the efforts taken by him to lead a proper marital life came in vain. She also alleged that the petitioner was having relationship with other girls in his work place. Petitioner is a Pilot by profession and on account of his nature of work, he requires appropriate rest before a scheduled flight. The respondent used to mindlessly wake him up and demand that they should discuss about his schedule and his interaction with female colleagues. The trauma he suffered, according to him, amounts to mental cruelty. Though he had made all arrangements for a luxurious life by providing sufficient funds to take care of the family, she was not at all happy and was harassing the petitioner. Even the sexual life between them stopped long back. The petitioner also contended that respondent made allegations against him stating that he was having illicit relationship with a Malayali air hostess. On 27/3/2010, she found a SMS sent by the petitioner to the said air hostess regarding his flight schedule. Even the sexual life between them stopped long back. The petitioner also contended that respondent made allegations against him stating that he was having illicit relationship with a Malayali air hostess. On 27/3/2010, she found a SMS sent by the petitioner to the said air hostess regarding his flight schedule. She screamed at him, accused and denigrated him and sought for the roster of the cabin crew and the flight schedule from others working in Air India to examine whether the petitioner and the air hostess were on the same flight. This caused humiliation to the petitioner in front of his colleagues. Attempts were made to engage a counsellor. But, the attitude of the respondent became worse. Even her mother could not prevent her from the attitude which she was showing. He further contended that when an Air India flight crashed in Mangalore airport killing 158 people on 25/2/2010 along with 6 crews, she called him up and told him that she hoped that his flight had crashed. Though the family members came and tried to solve the issues, nothing material happened and her misbehavior continued. It is further submitted that, on 23/5/2010, she had gone to the extent of depositing condoms in an Air India cover in the apartment letter box and later she herself had taken it in the presence of the petitioner to make accusations on the petitioner openly in the courtyard of the apartment. She even accused him of having sexual intercourse with his colleagues and told him openly at the courtyard. He further narrated an incident by which he was assaulted by his brother-in-law. On the basis of the above allegations, the original petition has been filed stating that the marital relationship had broken down irretrievably and there is no hope for a reunion. 4. The respondent filed objection denying all the allegations. According to her, all the allegations raised by him are concocted and have no basis. She also filed a counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 5. Before the Family Court, petitioner examined 7 witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and relied upon Exts.A1 to A8. PW1 is the petitioner himself. Respondent was examined as RW1. The Family Court found that the allegations raised by the petitioner stand proved and accordingly granted a decree for divorce and consequently the counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights had been dismissed. 6. PW1 is the petitioner himself. Respondent was examined as RW1. The Family Court found that the allegations raised by the petitioner stand proved and accordingly granted a decree for divorce and consequently the counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights had been dismissed. 6. While impugning the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings of the Family Court that the incidents narrated by the petitioner amounted to cruelty is absolutely baseless and erroneous and, therefore, a re-appreciation of the evidence is required. It is contended that when the wife had only questioned the husband about the reason for sending his flight schedule to another person and that too a female air hostess, it cannot be termed as a suspicion in order to create mental cruelty as alleged. Further, entire allegations are baseless and the appellant is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the husband supports the judgment of the Family Court inter alia contending that the entire episode narrated by the appellant and the witnesses clearly evidence a case of mental cruelty which cannot be tolerated by any person and on account of the continuous harassment on the side of the wife, the marriage has become irretrievably broken down and therefore a claim for restitution of conjugal rights was rightly rejected. 8. The first question to be considered in the case is whether the allegations in the petition have been proved by the petitioner. If the allegations are proved, necessarily, he is entitled for a decree of divorce and, if not, the respondent is entitled for restitution of conjugal rights as sought for in the counter claim. 9. It is stated that before marriage, petitioner was selected by Indian Airlines as a Trainee Flight Operation Officer with posting at Hyderabad. In January, 2004 he was posted at Chennai. Thereafter, he got employed in Air India as a Trainee Pilot and in October, 2004, he was sent for training to Hyderabad. He got a permanent posting as Pilot with Air India in April, 2005. In January, 2009, he was sent for training as Commander and in October, 2009, he has been promoted as Commander/Captain and he is placed in Chennai. He got a permanent posting as Pilot with Air India in April, 2005. In January, 2009, he was sent for training as Commander and in October, 2009, he has been promoted as Commander/Captain and he is placed in Chennai. In the petition, a general allegation had been made in regard to the character of the respondent by stating that her behaviour was abnormal and was creating troubles one after another giving no peace of mind to him. The other allegation is that due to the attitude of the respondent showing over possessiveness, petitioner was very much alert to avoid females and he had to move away from good and friendly people from among his family and friends. It is further contended that the respondent was over suspicious and every day she used to check on his movements and questioned him. She scrutinized his mobile phone, e-mails, papers, bags etc., and made accusation that he was having relationship with girls in his workplace. She even prevented him from having personal contact with his relatives and he was prevented from sending money to his father. A joint counselling was carried out and the counselor was of the opinion that she requires further counselling and medical help. Though attempts were made to consult a Psychoanalyst or Psychiatrist, it only sparked more violent reactions from her. The petitioner had narrated an incident on 27/3/2010 when the respondent found a SMS sent by the petitioner to a Malayali air hostess regarding flight schedule. On seeing it, she started accusing him and denigrating him and threatened to commit suicide with child after writing a note about his illicit relationship with the said air hostess. She repeatedly started making threats about committing suicide stating that she would jump with the child in front of a train or from a building. She even questioned his colleagues about the air hostess and the manner in which the petitioner was working, which caused damage to the reputation of the petitioner among his colleagues. He further submitted that during the first week of May, 2010, verbal abuse and physical violence continued and she kept track of the movements of the petitioner through detective agencies like Eagle Eye, 007 Detectives, Detectives International etc. She also obtained the phone call details of the petitioner from the service providers. She became physically violent and started beating up the petitioner as well as the child. She also obtained the phone call details of the petitioner from the service providers. She became physically violent and started beating up the petitioner as well as the child. He also narrated an incident on 23/5/2010 wherein she had deposited condoms in an Air India cover in the apartment letter box and she took the same in the presence of the petitioner and alleged that he was having sexual intercourse with his colleagues. He further alleges that she had left with the child and did not come back though he had taken admission for his son at Chennai. 10. In the proof affidavit, he had narrated the incidents as reflected in the petition. PW1 is the petitioner himself. PW2 is the petitioner’s cousin. In his affidavit in chief, he had stated that due to the attitude of the respondent, he did not keep in touch with the couple though he was very close with the petitioner. He had tried to mediate in regard to the issue between the couple. However, according to him, respondent’s father and brother did not behave in a civilized manner and the respondent’s brother even justified his assault on the petitioner. He had gone to the respondent’s house. He was denied access to meet the respondent and the child. It is contended that brother of the respondent had come to the house of the petitioner and created unruly scenes by dragging the petitioner by his shirt and attempted to manhandle him. Workers of the nearby building who witnessed the incident came forward to save the petitioner. Thereafter, under the guise of coming to apologize, father and brother of the respondent had come to the house of the petitioner’s aunt and created scenes. 11. PW3 is a cousin of the petitioner. She had given evidence stating the nature of behaviour of the respondent in order to indicate that she was always in the habit of quarrelling with people and the petitioner. 12. PW4 is the petitioner’s aunt. She also speaks about the strange behaviour of the respondent. According to her, respondent never liked the petitioner visiting or interacting with any of the relatives. She was over possessive and insecure. She always wanted to control the petitioner. She submits that on account of her behaviour, petitioner had distanced from the members of the family and all of them were forbidden from contacting him. According to her, respondent never liked the petitioner visiting or interacting with any of the relatives. She was over possessive and insecure. She always wanted to control the petitioner. She submits that on account of her behaviour, petitioner had distanced from the members of the family and all of them were forbidden from contacting him. In her discussion with the respondent, she had admitted that she had been oversuspicious and she had engaged detectives to track the movement of the petitioner and she felt sorry for abusing and overbearing him. In her discussions, she also noticed that respondent had suspicion of the relationship the petitioner had with another girl student in the college by name Sarah. She also narrates various instances where respondent had doubt about the character of the petitioner. 13. PW5 is a mason who was doing masonry work in a house at Ernakulam. In his chief affidavit, he states that at 11.00 o’clock in the morning, he saw the respondent along with her child coming in an auto rickshaw and going to the upstair portion of the neighbouring house. The petitioner was there in the upstair portion at the relevant time. In a few minutes, he saw the respondent and the child coming down and leaving in the same auto rickshaw. At about half an hour later, before 12.00 noon, he heard some shouting and abusive call. He saw a person aged 38 to 40 years standing in front of the said neighbouring house shouting abuses. He had gone up the stairs. There was a lot of noise in the upstair portion. Then he saw the said person dragging down the petitioner by shirt and was about to assault him. The witness and certain others ran to the scene. They intervened and got in between them. The aggressor left abusing and threatening the petitioner. Later, he knew that the aggressor was the brother-in-law of the petitioner. 14. PW6 is a Senior Operations Assistant of Air India. During 2009-10, he was working in the Pilot Roster Section of the Operations Department. He was in that post since October, 2006 and he continues even now. He knew the couple. They had resided in the nearby quarters. He deposes that respondent used to enquire with him regarding the flight details of the petitioner and whether those were request flights or normal scheduled flights. He was in that post since October, 2006 and he continues even now. He knew the couple. They had resided in the nearby quarters. He deposes that respondent used to enquire with him regarding the flight details of the petitioner and whether those were request flights or normal scheduled flights. He had informed that a person can only have one request flight in a month and the rest are all scheduled flights. Thereafter, she started repeatedly asking him about the same. When he enquired about the same to the respondent, she told him that she has doubt against the petitioner. She wants to know whether he was continuously travelling with a cabin crew by name Miss. X (the name is not mentioned to avoid any embarassment to the said person). The witness informed her that there is no such issue. Thereafter, she again started asking about the flight details and he informed the matter to the petitioner. He further deposes that respondent used to call him during office hours, she used to call from land line and from different mobile numbers also. He also gives certain numbers of mobile phones from which he received calls. He also deposed that respondent had repeatedly asked him on several occassions as to whether the petitioner had made request flight along with cabin crew Miss. X. When a question was put to him whether he knew about any relationship the petitioner had with Miss. X, his answer was that there is no such relationship. He does not know that there is any such relationship. During cross examination, he was asked whether a request can be made by the cabin crew just like request flight by the Pilot and he answered that he does not know about the cabin crew’s request as it is being dealt by another department. PW7 is the father of petitioner who supports him. 15. The respondent examined herself as RW1 and had given evidence in line with the contentions urged by her. 16. In the cross examination of PW1, he was asked whether he knew one Miss. X. He deposed that he knew her. She is a colleague and is in a different department. He knew her since January, 2005 and he met her for the first time at Hyderabad in the training establishment of Indian Airlines. 16. In the cross examination of PW1, he was asked whether he knew one Miss. X. He deposed that he knew her. She is a colleague and is in a different department. He knew her since January, 2005 and he met her for the first time at Hyderabad in the training establishment of Indian Airlines. His training was from October 2004 to February 2005, and he was not aware of her training duration. He further deposed that she is working in the flight services department and is at Chennai in the same company. She works as a flight attendant. Question was asked whether he had gone to her house. His answer was that he had gone and that too not alone. Questions were asked about her whereabouts which he had answered. He was asked whether she used to talk over phone or SMS and his answer was that she used to do so for a short period. He affirmed that he would be upset if it is reliably known that his wife is maintaining extra marital relationship. He further answered that any person will be upset on such information. According to him, if the information is genuine, there is reason to get upset. Further cross examination reveals that the line of questioning was that petitioner and Miss. X were flying together and this fact was concealed from the respondent. Further questions were asked stating that at certain destinations, Pilots and crew members have a common place of staying. He named a few destinations and then question was asked whether he and Miss. X were doing the same flight to those destinations and his answer was that it was only on one occasion. Clear suggestion was put to PW1 stating that he and Miss. X were arranging the same flight by even changing the roster frequently to such destinations. He answered that nothing was arranged, as pilot roster and cabin crew roster are totally unrelated and changes were made to suit the company requirements. 17. Petitioner had relied upon various documents to prove his contentions. Ext.A1 contains three postal receipts dated 24/4/2010 for sending Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively to a person called K.V.Churchill (Saidapet). He answered that nothing was arranged, as pilot roster and cabin crew roster are totally unrelated and changes were made to suit the company requirements. 17. Petitioner had relied upon various documents to prove his contentions. Ext.A1 contains three postal receipts dated 24/4/2010 for sending Rs.3,000/-, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively to a person called K.V.Churchill (Saidapet). PW1 in his affidavit in chief has stated that the respondent had kept track of his movements through detective agencies and even while he was hospitalized, she was arranging and paying the private detectives with his own money to spy on him. According to him, Ext.A1 receipts of money orders are send by the respondent to Mr. Churchill of Saidapet, who was the person in charge of the detective agency. Ext.A2 is an admit card for the minor child in order to indicate that petitioner had paid fees on 29/11/2009. Ext.A3 is an e-mail communication sent by the respondent to the petitioner. Ext.A4 is the telephone bills which contain the outgoing call details and the item wise call statement. Ext.A5 is another bill for payment of phone charges. Ext.A6 is a communication from Department of Posts to the petitioner obtained under the Right to Information Act. The details sought for was name of the sender and beneficiary (and/or) recipient of the money orders sent as per Ext.A1 series. As per the reply, the name of sender is Miss Priya 413X, 2-2, Air India Staff Colony, Meenambakkam, Chennai 600207 and name of beneficiary is K.V. Churchill, C/o Indian detectives, New No.20, Flower street, Bora complex, Saidapet, Chennai 600015. It is further stated that the original of money order application could not be supplied as the records related to the period April, 2010. Ext.A7 is a copy of the web page relating to Bureau of Indian Detectives and International Investigators wherein it is stated that the founder Director is Mr. K.V. Churchill and their address is Bora Complex, New #20, Flowers Street, Near J-1 Police Station, Saidapet, Chennai-600015. Ext.A8 is a scribbling in a rough paper wherein the address of the detective agency has been written, which according to the petitioner was written by the respondent. 18. The Family Court observed that the e-mail communication at Ext.A3 would establish the conduct and behaviour of the respondent regarding her dominating nature and also that she is not prepared to obey anybody. 18. The Family Court observed that the e-mail communication at Ext.A3 would establish the conduct and behaviour of the respondent regarding her dominating nature and also that she is not prepared to obey anybody. Further, from the evidence of RW1, it could be seen that the respondent had no specific allegation against the petitioner, whereas she was only denying the averments in the proof affidavit filed in the petition by the petitioner. The Family Court also found that there was no evidence to indicate that petitioner was a man having ill-behaviour or conduct or having illicit relationship with other woman and is leading an immoral life whereas the respondent had even gone to the extent of engaging private detective agency to watch and follow the petitioner for which she had sent money orders to the agency. All these facts clearly constitute a clear case of mental cruelty and therefore the petitioner is entitled for a decree for divorce. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a few judgments in order to contend the requirement of proof in regard to cruelty. In Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaya Kumar Bhate [ (2003) 6 SCC 334 ], the Apex Court after referring to various judgments in Dr.N.G.Dastane v. Mrs. S.Dastane ( AIR 1975 SC 1534 ) and V.Bhagat v. D.Bhagat (Mrs.) [ (1994) 1 SCC 337 ] held that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. The above proposition as well applies in the case of a husband also. It is further held that to satisfy the requirement of clause (ia) of sub section (1) of Section 13, the cruel treatment is not required for any particular duration or period. It will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of conduct, but, the cruelty should go 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. It will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of conduct, but, the cruelty should go 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. In Srinivas Rao K. v. D.A. Deepa [ (2013) 5 SCC 226 ], the Apex Court further held that making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegations against spouse or his/her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse. In Malathi Ravi (Dr) M.D. v. Dr. B.V. Ravi, M.D [ (2014) 7 SCC 640 ], it was held that while considering an application for divorce, subsequent events can also be taken note of. In Narendra v. K. Meena (2016 (5) KHC 180), the Apex Court held that making an allegation of extra marital relation with another person itself amounts to mental cruelty. It was also held that the persistent effort of wife to constrain husband to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and it constitutes an act of cruelty. In Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur (2010) 14 SCC 301 , the Apex Court held that no uniform standard can be laid down for guidance in order to give a comprehensive definition to the concept of mental cruelty. Instances of human behaviour are relevant in dealing with cases of mental cruelty and the prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. The Supreme Court had reiterated the guidelines enumerated by the three Judge Bench in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [ (2007) 4 SCC 511 ] in paragraph 12 of the judgment, which reads as under:- “12. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, a three-Judge Bench of this Court while considering Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act laid down certain guidelines. The analysis and ultimate conclusion are relevant which reads as under: (SCC pp. 545-47, paras 98-101) “98. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, a three-Judge Bench of this Court while considering Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act laid down certain guidelines. The analysis and ultimate conclusion are relevant which reads as under: (SCC pp. 545-47, paras 98-101) “98. On proper analysis and scrutiny of the judgments of this Court and other courts, we have come to the definite conclusion that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of ‘mental cruelty’ within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. No court in our considered view should even attempt to give a comprehensive definition of mental cruelty. 99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in the other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking the aforementioned factors into consideration. 101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” 20. In Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur [2005 (1) KLT 26 (SC)], a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. However, the conduct complained of should be grave and weighty, something more than ordinary wear and tear of married life. She also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Anitha v. Unnikrishnan (2013 KHC 679), wherein, this Court held that making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegations in the pleadings and evidence itself amounts to mental cruelty to the spouse against whom it is made and she should have realized that such unfounded allegations should have ruined the matrimonial life of the person against whom such allegations are also made. 21. Having regard to an over all consideration of the case law on the point, it is rather apparent that this case has to be considered on its own peculiar facts of the case. 21. Having regard to an over all consideration of the case law on the point, it is rather apparent that this case has to be considered on its own peculiar facts of the case. Though the petitioner/husband submits that all along the wife was behaving in an over possessive manner and he was not happy with the marital life on account of various circumstances which he had pointed out, he had tried to maintain the family relationship by making concessions and condoning her acts. He had referred to four specific problems that he was facing all throughout his life. One is that she was not permitting him to have any interaction with his near relatives including his father. Second is that she was having suspicion about his conduct. She charged him with having illicit relationship with his colleagues and especially a particular air hostess who was unmarried. She started making enquiries with his colleagues, which resulted in loss of reputation. Thirdly, she had sent detective agencies to sneak around him to find out about the alleged illicit relationship and she had also enquired with his colleagues and friends regarding his conduct, which has affected his reputation very badly and the last incident was an assault on him. 22. In regard to the first allegation, the contentions are proved by the oral testimony of PWs 1 to 4 and 7. The respondent in her evidence had denied the said facts. But when all the relatives of the petitioner uniformly submits that she never wanted any of the relatives to go near the petitioner, the version of the petitioner has to be believed. 23. In regard to the second and third allegations, there is enough evidence to substantiate that she had suspicion against the petitioner and she had arranged a detective agency to sneak around the petitioner. Ext.A1 are the receipts for payment of money order to a person by name Mr.Churchill. Ext.A6 is the information obtained under the Right to Information Act which would show that the sender of the money order is the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant raised strong exception to the aforesaid documents. According to her, it was manipulated. Ext.A1 are the receipts for payment of money order to a person by name Mr.Churchill. Ext.A6 is the information obtained under the Right to Information Act which would show that the sender of the money order is the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant raised strong exception to the aforesaid documents. According to her, it was manipulated. It is argued that these documents could have been obtained by the petitioner by filling up a form in the name of his wife and therefore, the idea was to make evidence in order to have a divorce alleging that she had engaged a detective agency. But it could be seen that the respondent had a clear doubt against the petitioner and she believed that he was having an extramarital relationship with another person. The evidence of PW6 clearly indicates that she was making enquiries regarding the roster of the petitioner as well as the other lady and his evidence would show that she was making repeated enquiries. This fact would show that she was having suspicion against the petitioner. Atleast his colleague was aware of the suspicion the respondent had against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, when he made enquiries, he had to explain to his friends regarding the suspicion the wife had against him. Petitioner also narrates various incidents by which his reputation has been substantially damaged by the acts of the respondent. Most of the cross examination of PW1 was dedicated to the alleged involvement of the petitioner with an air hostess. Thus the suspicion the respondent had against the petitioner is never ending. The suspicion is a phenomenon which creates severe mental agony to the person who is suspected of extra marital relationship. When the explanation offered by the suspected spouse is not accepted by the other spouse and the trauma continues, the situation is agonizing and becomes intolerable. Several incidents are pointed out to substantiate the above fact and as held by the Apex Court in various judgments, alleging extra marital relationship against a spouse itself amounts to cruelty which cannot be ignored. 24. Further, petitioner had also proved an incident through PW2 and PW5 regarding the fact that he was manhandled by the respondent’s brother. There is no contra evidence regarding the same. 25. 24. Further, petitioner had also proved an incident through PW2 and PW5 regarding the fact that he was manhandled by the respondent’s brother. There is no contra evidence regarding the same. 25. On an overall evaluation of the above factual circumstances involved in the matter, which stands proved, it is rather clear that the petitioner had to suffer severe mental cruelty on account of the acts of the appellant/respondent. Under such circumstances, we do not find any error on the part of the Family Court to have arrived at such a conclusion. No grounds are made out for interference in the judgment. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.