JUDGMENT : M.R. PATHAK, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.U. Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Matrimonial Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is against the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2014 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Cachar, Silchar in F.C. (Civil) No. 102/2006, whereby appellant's petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent was dismissed. 3. The appellant is an employee in the electrical department in the Paper Mill of Hindustan Paper Corporation at Pachgram. As per his work, he needs to leave his house early morning so as to join his duties and returns home late at night. Occasionally, he is also required to stay back in the Mill itself during his shift duties at night. After the death of his wife, Namita Das in June 1999, as it was very difficult on his part to look after his three minor children, two daughters and a son, he kept his niece Smti. Pina Das, aged about 17-18 years, daughter of his first cousin Sri Rishi Das, who resides adjacent to his house as care taker of his three children. 4. Considering the suggestion of his elders and well wishers, he consented for second marriage thinking that children will get a company, who will also look after his house hold work. Accordingly, his marriage with the respondent, who was about 38 years of old, was negotiated and he married the respondent on 13.03.2001 in her paternal home at village Brahmangram, Kalain under Katigorah Police Station as per Hindu rites. It is stated that after the marriage when she came to his house at Patirakandi, Mokoi Bhanga, seeing his minor children and his niece/the caretaker of his children Smti. Rina Das, the respondent got annoyed and asked him to get rid of them so that she can live a married life. To bring console and peace in the family, he sent his second daughter to the house of her maternal uncle at Karimganj and handed over his son to one of his cousin sister and kept his eldest daughter with him. 5. It is stated that as the respondent continuously alleged and abused the appellant of having an illicit physical relation with the said caretaker of his children Smti. 5. It is stated that as the respondent continuously alleged and abused the appellant of having an illicit physical relation with the said caretaker of his children Smti. Rina Das, she too left his house and whenever, he returns home late from his work, the respondent use to abuse him that he had visited the house of Rima Das and stayed with her. Because of such abusive behavior, assault on him by the respondent, witnessed by some of his neighbours and being humiliated in presence of others, he was mentally shocked. As some of his kinsmen having enmity with him took the opportunity to humiliate and harass him by all means and instigated the respondent in such act, the appellant, considering that it will not be possible on his part to live a good social life in his village, he took a house on rent at Badarpur in February 2002 and is residing in it with his eldest daughter and son, since then. 6. It is stated by the appellant that the respondent on the other hand lived in his house at his native place at Patirakandi, Mokoi Bhanga with her brothers and some outsiders. He also stated that once when he visited his house at his native, finding the outsiders in his house, he protested but he was assaulted by the respondent and other people. He alleged that the respondent and her brothers had exhausted his entire paddy in his house and that he had also come to know that the respondent is now living with her father at Kalain and had left his house at his native by locking the same. 7. The appellant stated that such act of the respondent amounts to cruelty, for which he is suffering from mental shock and therefore, the cause of action of the suit arose on 13.03.2001. For such reason he had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar in April 2002 praying for a decree to dissolve the marriage between him and the respondent and it was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 37/2002. The respondent on receipt of notice entered appearance in the matter and contested the suit by filing her written statement She also claimed for pendent lite maintenance, which was allowed by the Court. 8. The respondent on receipt of notice entered appearance in the matter and contested the suit by filing her written statement She also claimed for pendent lite maintenance, which was allowed by the Court. 8. After constitution of the Family Court at Cachar, Silchar said title Suit No. 37/2002 was transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar Silchar in September, 2006, wherein it was re-registered and re-numbered as FC (Civil) 102/2006. Initially, on 13.8.2007, learned, Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar, Silchar by his judgment and decree dated 13.08.2007 dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent with a direction to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month as permanent alimony to the respondent till her re-marriage. However, in Matrimonial Appeal No. 32/2009 that was preferred by the respondent, finding that the witnesses examined by the present appellant was not tendered for cross examination, this Court by Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2013 set aside the said order dated 13.08.2007 passed in FC (Civil) Case No. 102/2006 and remanded the matter to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar, Silchar for further evidence allowing the said appellant to cross examine PWs 2 to 4 and directed the Trial Court to pass appropriate judgment thereafter. After completion of evidence and cross examination the impugned judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 was passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Cachar, Silchar dismissing the petition of the present appellant on contest holding that he is not entitled to get a decree for dissolution of his marriage. 9. For proper adjudication of the case, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-- (i) Whether the plaintiff is deserted by the defendant respondent and he was subject to mental and physical torture by the defendant respondent? (ii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 10. We have perused the evidence on records. The appellant examined himself and also examined 4 (four) other witnesses from his side as PWs, who were cross examined by the respondent. The respondent examined herself and 2 (two) others as DWs who were cross examined by the appellant. 11. P.W. 1 is the appellant/husband, P.W. 2, Rabindra Das, a co-villager of the appellant, P.W. 3, Rishi Das, cousin brother of the appellant and father of said Smti. Rina Das (caretaker of appellant's children), P.W. 4 Suklal Das, a co-villager of the appellant, who resides adjacent to him and P.W. 5, Md. 11. P.W. 1 is the appellant/husband, P.W. 2, Rabindra Das, a co-villager of the appellant, P.W. 3, Rishi Das, cousin brother of the appellant and father of said Smti. Rina Das (caretaker of appellant's children), P.W. 4 Suklal Das, a co-villager of the appellant, who resides adjacent to him and P.W. 5, Md. Abul Bari, a co-villager of the appellant. On the other hand D.W. 1, is the respondent herself, D.W. 2 is Sri Rukhini Das, co-villager of the respondent at Village Patirakandi, resides near to her house and D.W. 3, Sri Jiten Das, is another co-villager of Patirakandi. 12. Going through the evidence it can be seen that the respondent was very unhappy with her husband as she was of the belief that he was having a relation with Smti. Rina Das, former caretaker of his children. Because of her such objection, both the appellant and respondent quarrelled over the said issue. The appellant in his evidence in chief clearly stated that in March 2001 he admitted his son in a school at Badarpur, admitted his daughter Uma Das (eldest daughter) in Maluya High School and that he is residing with them in a rented house at Badarpur and in his absence, the landlords of the house use to look after his children. He also deposed that his wife is residing in his house at Mokoi Bhanga, sold the grains stocked at his granary and also sold his paddy and other crops, betel nuts, etc. He also deposed that his house has been occupied by his wife, her brother and family members and some outsiders and when he objected to it, he was assaulted by her people in October, 2001. However in his cross examination, appellant categorically stated that he did not visit his village since February, 2002 and that the respondent is still living in his village house. 13. Other PWs stated that the appellant resides at Badarpur in a rented house, as respondent ill-treats him and though he came to his native earlier on two three occasions, but once he was assaulted by men of the respondent and since then he has stopped visiting his village house. They also deposed that respondent occupied the house of the appellant at Mokoi Bhanga, sold the paddy, other crops and betel nuts, etc. They also deposed that respondent occupied the house of the appellant at Mokoi Bhanga, sold the paddy, other crops and betel nuts, etc. of the appellant P.W. 3 father of Rina Das stated that his said daughter got married to one Ajay Das and is residing with her husband. P.W. 5 stated that he saw the incident of said assault. They were cross examined by the respondent. 14. The respondent in her evidence deposed that she got married to the appellant on 13.03.2001, lived together as husband and wife at Mokoi Bhanga and that after her marriage; she noticed that her husband was having a relation with Rina Das, daughter of Rishi Das of same village and he conducts himself as per her instruction and when she objected to all this, confrontation took place. She also deposed that appellant is living with his three children at Badarpur, without taking any care of her since long and that she is residing in his house at Mokoi Bhanga alone in a hard press condition, where her brothers and parents occasionally visits her. She also stated that she has heard that said Rina Das has returned from her matrimonial home and her husband is still having relation with her. She stated that as she was assaulted by the appellant and his men, her father lodged a complaint on 09.08.2001 before Police at Badarpur Police Station. She also stated that as her sister Sumitra was assaulted by the appellant and his men on 23.04.2002, her father on 24.04.2002 informed Badarpur Police Station about the said incident. The other two DWs also stated that disharmony between the respondent and appellant is said Rina Das, the daughter of Rishi Das, P.W. 3, with whom appellant has close relation. They also stated that they came to know that said Rina Das has returned from her matrimonial home and the appellant is keeping relation with her. The DWs were cross examined by the appellant. 15. Respondent is a legally married wife of the appellant. She is still in her husband's house, i.e. in the house of the appellant at Mokoi Bhanga. Admittedly, since February, 2002 her husband, i.e. the appellant has not kept any relation with her. As a wife, the respondent can certainly raise an issue with her husband regarding his relation with another lady, which is not generally acceptable to any wife in any way. 16. Admittedly, since February, 2002 her husband, i.e. the appellant has not kept any relation with her. As a wife, the respondent can certainly raise an issue with her husband regarding his relation with another lady, which is not generally acceptable to any wife in any way. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suman Kapoor Vs. Sudhir Kapur, reported in 2009 (1) SCC 422 have observed that the term "cruelty" has not been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act and "Cruelty" in the context of its applicability under the Act as the term signifies is a conduct of such type that the petitioner could not be expected to live with the husband or it has become impossible for the spouse to live together. 17. In the case of V. Bhagat Vs. D. Bhagat, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 337 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that merely because there are allegations and counter-allegations, a decree of divorce cannot follow. Nor is mere delay in disposal of the divorce proceedings by itself a ground. There must be really some extraordinary features to warrant grant of divorce on the basis of pleadings (and other admitted material) without a full trial. Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself. But while scrutinising the evidence on record to determine whether the ground(s) alleged is/are made out and in determining the relief to be granted, the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind. The unusual step as the one taken by us herein can be resorted to only to clear up an insoluble mess, when the court finds it in the interest of both the parties. 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 , have held that Cruelly postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. 19. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. 19. In the case in hand the appellant husband had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty attributed to the respondent wife. The averments made in the petition and the evidence led in support thereof clearly show that the allegations, even if held to have been proved, would only show the sensitivity of the appellant with respect to the conduct of the respondent which cannot be termed more than ordinary wear and tear of the family life. 20. In the present case the appellant has failed to establish any such cruelty committed by his wife upon him, as he also failed to establish that he has no such relation with said Rina Das, by examining her as his witness. On the other hand the respondent is still waiting for her husband, the appellant. 21. From the above we are of the view that the impugned Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2014 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Cachar, Silchar in F.C. (Civil) No. 102/2006 does not call for any interference. 22. Accordingly, this matrimonial appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. 23. Registry shall return the records of F.C. (Civil) 102/2006 to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Cachar, Silchar along with a copy of this judgment.