JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This appeal has been filed by the wife-Punam Rao@ Punam Rao Borah against the judgment and order dated 19/06/2015 passed by the District Judge, Lakhimpur in Title Suit (Divorce) No. 18/2009, dismissing the suit for divorce and decreeing the counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights of her husband-Biren Bora. 2. Punam Rao and Biren Bora got married on 10/03/1994 as per Hindu rites and rituals and after marriage they started living as husband and wife. Due to the wedlock, two children were also born. But, Punam Rao filed the suit for a decree of divorce on the ground that Biren Bora used to treat her with both mental and physical cruelty after the birth of their children. She claimed that, Biren Bora maltreated their children too, and did not also take good care of them, not to speak of maintenance. Biren Bora was also not inclined to engage private tutor for their children. Punam Rao stated that on 15/04/2009, when their maid servant Bina Bordoloi left their house, Biren Bora insisted Punam Rao to have that particular maid servant only and none else; and when she refused to do so, Biren Bora left her and their children in their house and started living separately in another house. She also stated that during the period from 2006 to 2008, when she was posted out of the district, then also Biren Bora did not bother for taking care of them. Ultimately, on 10/07/2009 Biren Bora went to the house of Punam Rao and threatened her and their children with dire consequences. Again, on 27/07/2009 he went to the house of Punam Rao when she was in office and threatened their children in the same manner and finding no other way, she lodged a case against him under section 448/506/498-A of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Punam Rao filed the suit for a decree of divorce. 3. Biren Bora contested the suit by filing written statement as well as counter claim denying the allegations leveled against him. He categorically stated that he never treated either Punam Rao or their children with cruelty. He further stated that he is a well educated person and as such preferred to educate their children himself than to engage some tutor for them. He categorically stated that he never treated either Punam Rao or their children with cruelty. He further stated that he is a well educated person and as such preferred to educate their children himself than to engage some tutor for them. He constantly supported Punam Rao in every walk of life and even stood as a guarantor when Punam Rao purchased a car for her in October, 2008. He also stated that when their aforesaid maid servant wished to visit her house during ‘Bohag Bihu’, Punam Rao did not grant her leave and due to interference of Biren Bora, she was allowed to go. But the maid servant did not return home. At this, Punam Rao got furious and asked him to do the household chores which he did. But, on 27/07/2009, Punam Rao got him arrested by registering a case under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by misusing her official position of a Grade-I government servant of the State. 4. Punam Rao adduced her evidence supporting the statements made in the petition. Anamika Bora (PW-2), a student of class-V, is daughter of Punam Rao and Biren Bora. She in her evidence has supported Punam Rao by saying that Biren Bora used to torture and threaten them with dire consequences. Hence, she did not wish to stay with her father and expressed her desire to stay with Punam Rao. Biren Bora also adduced his evidence supporting his case and stated that due to the arrest made by police, he had to spend 14 days in jail hazot without any justifiable cause. The trial court, upon hearing the parties passed the judgment and order as aforesaid disbelieving the version of Punam Rao and further directing her to resume conjugal life with Biren Bora. Hence, this appeal by Punam Rao. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, we find no substance in the appeal. The reason is that Punam Rao could not establish the fact of mental as well as physical cruelty meted out to her by Biren Bora. The allegations as leveled by her regarding cruelty do not amount to such an act which would cause injury to a person and put her in a situation hazardous to her life compelling to withdraw herself from the society of Biren Bora. The allegations as leveled by her regarding cruelty do not amount to such an act which would cause injury to a person and put her in a situation hazardous to her life compelling to withdraw herself from the society of Biren Bora. Unwillingness of Biren Bora to engage private tutors for their children cannot be a ground of cruelty and threatening Punam Rao and their children with life; also does not have any substance. Their daughter-Anamika-also admitted during her cross-examination that Biren Bora took her and her brother to the official quarter of Punam Rao when she was posted at Udalguri, but they resided in the house of their parents at Tezpur and Biswanath Chariali. Biren Bora also stated that he used to take care of their children when Punam Rao was posted elsewhere. Anamika, a minor, was living with her mother (Punam Rao) and as such there is every chance of her to be tutored. So, we are of the view that the allegations made against Biren Bora have not been proved and the same do not amount to cruelty for granting a decree of divorce. 6. Besides, not a single whisper has been made regarding Biren Bora living in adultery or having illicit relationship with the maid servant. The allegation is that he insisted to keep that particular maid servant only. Punam Rao also did not state in her evidence that Biren Bora was leading an adulterous life with the maid servant. Their daughter Anamika also only stated that Biren Bora used to listen to the maid servant more than her mother for which quarrel used to take place between her parents. But Biren Bora stated that he insisted Punam Rao to grant permission to the maid servant to go home in ‘Bohag Bihu’ and when she did not return, Punam Rao used to blame him for that. 7. On the other hand, Biren Bora was put to arrest at the instance of Punam Rao for which he had to spend 14 days in jail hazot causing trauma and his social position being lowered. But in spite of that, Biren Bora is desirous to stay with his wife and children and as such there is a chance of reunion. On the other hand, Biren Bora was put to arrest at the instance of Punam Rao for which he had to spend 14 days in jail hazot causing trauma and his social position being lowered. But in spite of that, Biren Bora is desirous to stay with his wife and children and as such there is a chance of reunion. Therefore, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly passed the judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights by dismissing the case of Punam Rao for divorce. 8. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.