JUDGMENT : Lodh, J. This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant-husband challenging the legality and validity of the judgment dated 23.03.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in case no. T.S. (Divorce) 161 of 2013 whereby and where under, the suit filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief, are that, the marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 13.07.1995 according to Hindu rites and customs and started to lead their conjugal life at the house of the appellant. At the time of marriage, the appellant was serving as a Diploma passed Engineer under the Government of Tripura and residing in his village at Charipara. On the other hand, the respondent appeared to belong from a highly educated and affluent family being her father was a nominated IAS officer. After few days of the marriage, it is the respondent and her family members who proposed the appellant to stay with his wife as ‘gharjamai’ in her paternal house but, the appellant could not accept the same as he has his mother and unemployed younger brother dependent upon him in his house. Gradually, the respondent started to express her dis-satisfaction to reside in the huts of the appellant as she was born and brought up in the building of her father’s house. The appellant tried to bear with the illogical demands of the respondent and tried to pacify her saying that within a short period he would undertake construction work for building, but, ultimately, the appellant could not. It is stated by the appellant that after ‘boubhat’ ceremony, all the golden ornaments and golden articles given in marriage were taken away by the sisters of the respondent in her paternal home on the pre-text that those articles were not secured enough in the mud wall hut of the appellant. 3. At the time of his marriage, the appellant was posted at Manughat and after residing there for some days and after making an arrangement for residence in a rented house, when he came back to his house to take the respondent there came to know that the respondent left for her paternal home and started to reside at her father’s house at Ramnagar Road no. 10. 10. The appellant visited the house of his in-laws on several occasion to take the respondent back to his house, but, all went in vain and in such a way, the marital relation between the appellant and the respondent only lasted for 5/6 days since marriage. On 11.05.1996, the respondent gave birth of a male child in IGM hospital, Agartala and at that time also the appellant desired to take back the respondent and his child to his house at Charipara, but, neither the respondent nor his family members considered the desire of the appellant rather they behaved rudely with the appellant. Having found no other alternative, the appellant arranged for a rented house within the Agartala town with a view to take back his wife and son and in that house at Sankar Chowmuhani, Agartala owned by Sekhar Das, the respondent resided with the petitioner only for a few days and thereafter, left without assigning any reason. Again the appellant arranged for a rented house at Durga Chowmuhani and after repeated persuasion succeeded to take the respondent back with her child in that rented house but, there also the respondent stayed about a month and thereafter, left the house. In September, 1998, again the appellant took the respondent and his child by making the arrangement in a rented house at AD Nagar, as proposed by the father of the respondent where the appellant and the respondent resided along with their child for a period of about 1 ½ months but, the respondent left that rented house also with a quest to lead a peaceful conjugal life along with the respondent and his son, the appellant had purchased a plot land at Charipara and constructed a mud wall hut with bathroom and latrine etc. but, after the construction, the respondent did not consider to stay in the newly purchased house of the appellant with a view to lead a peaceful conjugal life. In the month of April, 2002, with the initiative of a local club, the respondent decided to stay with the appellant along with their son when the appellant gladly accepted the wishes of his wife but, unfortunately, on 08.06.2002, the respondent left the house without any consent of the appellant. In the month of April, 2002, with the initiative of a local club, the respondent decided to stay with the appellant along with their son when the appellant gladly accepted the wishes of his wife but, unfortunately, on 08.06.2002, the respondent left the house without any consent of the appellant. When repeated attempts to bring back the respondent have failed, the appellant filed a suit for re-stitution of conjugal rights in the court of the Judge, Family court, West Tripura, Agartala which was numbered as T.S. (RCR) 31 of 2004. The case was decreed on 31.03.2005 on compromise directing the appellant and the respondent to live together following the terms and conditions of the decree passed in the said RCR proceeding against which the appellant preferred appeal before the compromise but, ultimately the same was dismissed. The compromise petition which they have jointly filed before the Judge, Family Court in T.S. (RCR) 31 of 2004 is necessary to be reproduced here-in-below: “According to the terms and conditions of their solenama the petitioner assured the respondent as well as the court as follows: (1) The petitioner asserted that he would not torture upon the respondent both mentally and physically in future. He further confirmed that if his wife approached the court with such an allegation in future the inference would be drawn against him and before inflicting punishment against him, the Court would consider the allegations whether those were baseless. 2. He further assured that he would not treat his wife as maid servant and would not rebuke/abuse her in filthy language in future. 3. He assured and confirmed that he would make the respondent as nominee for his GPF Account, Group Insurance, LIC Polices within three months with effect from today. 4. The petitioner further assured and confirmed that he would execute a registered Gift deed for three Gandas of his home stead land to the name of his wife within six months from today. 5. The petitioner would pay Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only per month to his wife in every month for her expenditure and he would incur all expenses of the education of their only son. On the other hand the respondent wife assured the petition as well as the Court in return as follows: a. The respondent would intimate the petitioner before going to any where even in her parent’s house. On the other hand the respondent wife assured the petition as well as the Court in return as follows: a. The respondent would intimate the petitioner before going to any where even in her parent’s house. b. She would not allow the family members of her parents to poke their nose into their day to day family life. c. She would expend Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) within she would get in every month from her husband for her family purposes. d. She further assured that if there was at all any necessity to have an order of divorce, she would discuss with her husband and thereafter, they would approach the Court for having an order of dissolution of their marriage tie. They both prayed to dispose of the Title Suit (RCR)/FC/31 of 2004 in terms of their solenama dated 09.03.2005”. 4. Before the said proceeding the respondent also filed a petition before the court of Judicial magistrate, 1st class, Sadar under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself as well as for her minor child. Accordingly, the learned court allowed Rs. 1500/- each to the respondent and the minor child and the DDO, employer of the appellant, was directed to deduct directly from the salary of the appellant and pay the same to the appellant. 5. While disposing of the case no. T.S. (RCR) 31 of 2004, the Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala has observed as under: “If the parties to the suit who were also the parties to the Miscellaneous case no. 32 of 2003 failed to live together violating the terms and conditions of their solenama dated 09.03.05 there will be no need for the respondent (wife) to approach again the court for having maintenance allowance for herself and their minor child. She will approach directly to the Authority of the respondent Sri Babul Chandra Majumder for having the maintenance allowance”. It was further observed that: “So, considering all aspects I am of the opinion that the order of disposal of the instant suit on compromise should not be given as a simple order of disposal like other suits and cases. It cannot be an order of disposal simpliciter. The parties to the suit should be bound by their terms and conditions. They will not be allowed to deviate from the terms and conditions as fixed by them in their solenama. It cannot be an order of disposal simpliciter. The parties to the suit should be bound by their terms and conditions. They will not be allowed to deviate from the terms and conditions as fixed by them in their solenama. If they follow it whole heartedly, this order will not stand as an impediment of their happy conjugal life ”. 6. After dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant, which he preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2005 passed by the Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (RCR)31 of 2004, it was expected that the respondent would abide by the terms and conditions of the decree passed in T.S. (RCR) 31 of 2004, but, it is the case of the appellant that the respondent even did not care for compliance of the decree dated 31.03.2005 and made no attempt to restore conjugal life with the appellant. 7. In the year 2008, the appellant instituted the divorce proceeding under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but, in that case also the clever respondent played a mischievous role to dispose of that suit on the basis of that so slenama but, ultimately she did not co-operate with the appellant for resumption of their conjugal life, rather harassed the appellant by her reckless negative attitude. 8. Thus, the marital life of the appellant from the very beginning had commenced with filing of litigation. The appellant has claimed that he suffered huge deprivation of love and affection of his son and the respondent is entirely responsible for the entire unfortunate set-back and in such a circumstance finding no other alternative, the appellant had to institute the suit for divorce against the respondent. 9. Controverting the allegations leveled against her, the respondent has stated that, when her marriage was solemnized she was a student of 1st year of Womens’ college at Agartala. The appellant assured that, after marriage also he would allow the continuation of her studies which was not materialized. It is also the case of the respondent that, the appellant used to torture her mentally and physically and has admitted that they have shifted so many rented houses. She has stated that, at the time of purchase of the house at Charipara, the appellant had asked the respondent to take Rs. It is also the case of the respondent that, the appellant used to torture her mentally and physically and has admitted that they have shifted so many rented houses. She has stated that, at the time of purchase of the house at Charipara, the appellant had asked the respondent to take Rs. 50,000/- from her father which was refused by her and due to her inability to arrange Rs. 50,000/-, she was tortured and driven away from her matrimonial home. In that circumstance, the respondent filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. The respondent has admitted that the suit for restitution and subsequent divorce suit bearing no. T.S. (Divorce) 227 of 2006 were disposed of on compromise. Out of that compromise, the respondent also went to the house of the appellant and she was happy with the appellant till June, 2012 but, in the middle of June, 2012, the appellant asked the respondent to bring Rs. 1 lakh from her father against which she expressed her inability and for that reason, she was severely beaten by the appellant and ultimately in the month of July, 2012, the respondent was ousted by the appellant from his house. Again at the instance of some well wishers, they started to reside together but, from 18.11.2012, she was again tortured by the appellant severely and ultimately the appellant ousted the respondent from his house. It is further case of the respondent that she tried her level best to lead her conjugal life with the appellant and in all occasion, she went to the house of the appellant as per order of the court but, could not stay there for the torture of the appellant caused upon her. She has categorically stated that the appellant is not a good human being and always used to harass the respondent and her son. Ultimately, she prayed for dismissal of the divorce suit. 10. The Judge, Family Court after considering the pleadings of both the parties has framed the following issues: “(i) Whether the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent? (ii) Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner and if so from what point of time? (iii) Is the petitioner entitled to the decree as prayed for?” 11. During the course of proceeding, both the appellant and the respondent have adduced their respective evidence as PW-1 and DW-1 respectively. (ii) Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner and if so from what point of time? (iii) Is the petitioner entitled to the decree as prayed for?” 11. During the course of proceeding, both the appellant and the respondent have adduced their respective evidence as PW-1 and DW-1 respectively. They did not produce any other witness in support of their respective cases. The Judge, Family Court, after considering the evidences and materials on record, has dismissed the suit for dissolution of marriage instituted by the appellant. Hence, this appeal before this court. 12. We have meticulously perused the evidences and materials available on record. The appellant, in course of his examination has reiterated the facts which he has stated in his petition for divorce. The crux of his statement in examination-in-chief that since the very beginning of his marriage, the respondent was apathetic to lead a conjugal life peacefully with the appellant because she hailed from a affluent family while he belongs from a ordinary family and used to stay in a mud wall hut which the respondent was not habituated and just after 7 days, the respondent left the matrimonial home without giving any information to anybody. Even after the birth of the child, she did not come back despite repeated request made to her. To meet her demand, the respondent arranged rented accommodation at her preferred place, but, all the time she by this and that reason used to leave the company of the appellant and preferred to have a comfortable stay at her father’s house. Ultimately, the appellant became mentally disturbed and physically ill due to the torture caused upon him inflicted by the respondent and for that reason, he prayed for a decree of divorce to get rid of such unbearable situation. In his cross-examination, the appellant denied the suggestion that the respondent never expressed her dis-satisfaction in stating that the appellant had his house at Charipara. In cross-examination, the statement of the appellant could not be dislodged in any manner whatsoever. 13. The respondent in her examination-in-chief has stated that, she stayed for few days at the house of the appellant but, due to his misbehavior, she left her matrimonial home. She also has stated in her evidence that it was the husband who created pressure upon her to stay in her paternal home. 13. The respondent in her examination-in-chief has stated that, she stayed for few days at the house of the appellant but, due to his misbehavior, she left her matrimonial home. She also has stated in her evidence that it was the husband who created pressure upon her to stay in her paternal home. She has stated that in the event of her demand for any facility, the appellant used to tell her to arrange those facilities from her parents. During his service tenure at Manughat, the respondent was never taken to Manughat. She has stated that her husband also off and on used to express that he was unable to maintain two families i.e. at Manughat and at Agartala and ultimately she was taken to a rented house at Agartala when her son was 7 months old and since then they stayed in a rented accommodation for about 3/ 4 years. In the year 1997, her husband was transferred to Agartala for the purpose of attending training and used to reside with her. It is her case that the respondent used to torture her mentally and physically and the appellant had no love and affection either for her or for her son. She has stated that she went to her husband’s house for the last time in the year 2009 and stayed with him till 2012 and ultimately, she was severely tortured and ousted by her husband from his house and since then she is residing in her paternal house along with her son. The appellant neither made any contact with her nor he made any attempt to take her back and the case of the appellant is false. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that it is not the fact that her husband had to face severe consequence during his marital life due to non-cooperation with him. She has reiterated the facts which she has stated in her examination-in-chief. 14. For the sake of clarity, convenience and brevity of the case, we have taken up all the issues together and proceeded to decide the case. After the evidence being scanned, the following facts are elucidated: (i) The statement of the appellant that since his marriage he was forced to indulge in litigation to keep his marital life intact. 14. For the sake of clarity, convenience and brevity of the case, we have taken up all the issues together and proceeded to decide the case. After the evidence being scanned, the following facts are elucidated: (i) The statement of the appellant that since his marriage he was forced to indulge in litigation to keep his marital life intact. (ii) After few days of the marriage, the respondent left the matrimonial home as well as the company of the appellant. (iii) Within 1 ½ years of the marriage, she gave birth of a male child when despite repeated request by the appellant as well as his mother, the respondent refused to go to her matrimonial home. (iv) The appellant had arranged for a rented accommodation at Agartala town to stay with his wife but, at that time also the respondent occasionally used to visit that rented house and on maximum time she used to go back to her paternal house and during this period, she hardly spent 2/3 nights with the appellant. (v) The present divorce suit is the fourth round of litigation in his life after his marriage. Whenever, the cases were filed by him for restitution and for leading a peaceful conjugal life, the respondent used to enter into compromise with an oblique purpose and motive because after few days of such compromise, she used to leave the company of the appellant. (vi) The respondent has stated that after about 1 ½ years of their marriage, the appellant started to misbehave with her and also used to quarrel with her in their day to day family affairs. The appellant used to create pressure upon the respondent to stay at her paternal house. (vii) Though the appellant expressed his inability to maintain two families i.e. at Manughat and at Agartala, but, ultimately the appellant had to take a rented house at Agartala and where they stayed for about 3/4 years. (viii) In the year 1997, whenever the appellant used to come to Agartala for the purpose of attending training, he used to reside with her. (ix) The respondent had suddenly stated in her examination –in-chief that the appellant used to torture her mentally and even physically. (x) After the purchase of land and construction of house at Charipara, they used to reside together. During that stay, the respondent used to torture the appellant. (ix) The respondent had suddenly stated in her examination –in-chief that the appellant used to torture her mentally and even physically. (x) After the purchase of land and construction of house at Charipara, they used to reside together. During that stay, the respondent used to torture the appellant. (xi) In the year 2009, she went to her husband’s house for the last time and stayed there till 2012, but, she had to leave the house and company of the appellant due to torture. (xii) In her cross-examination, the respondent has admitted that there was a mud wall and tin shed kachcha hut in her matrimonial home and her father was a nominated IAS officer. (xiii) However, the respondent has stated that her husband does not belong to a poor family. 15. The finding of the Judge, Family Court, appeared to be a cryptic one and suffered from non-application of mind. The trial court also did not know it necessary to discuss the evidence led by the parties. He made a reference of a decision in Gurubux Singh vs. Harminder Kaur, reported in AIR 2011 SC 114 , wherein it is held that: “The ill-conduct must be precedent for a fairly lengthy period where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, one party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party no longer may amount to mental cruelty. Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and expressing certain displeasure about the behaviour of elders may not be characterized as cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty”. Placing reliance on this decision, the Judge, Family Court had refused to grant a decree of dissolution of marriage and dismissed the suit of the appellant. 16. On critical analysis of the evidences and materials on record, it is revealed that the respondent was very casual in her approach to stay permanently with the appellant and she was not comfortable to stay in the mud wall hut of the appellant. It is not disputed that the appellant has his parents at the time of marriage. 16. On critical analysis of the evidences and materials on record, it is revealed that the respondent was very casual in her approach to stay permanently with the appellant and she was not comfortable to stay in the mud wall hut of the appellant. It is not disputed that the appellant has his parents at the time of marriage. Despite that, the appellant had to arrange separate accommodation on rent with an intention to lead a peaceful conjugal life. The suit for restitution of conjugal right instituted by the appellant was concluded by a compromise petition jointly filed by the appellant and the respondent. It was not a disposal simplicitor, but, many conditions were stipulated. So, the bondage of marriage will be guided by the terms and conditions and there was no patience for each other. The suit for divorce for dissolution of marriage was also ended in a compromise, but, that compromise appeared to be eyewash, which time and again failed. 17. The appellant has stated that the respondent used to prefer to stay at her paternal house, has indirectly been admitted by the respondent when she has stated that it was the appellant who used to create pressure upon her to stay with her parents. We also have noticed that though the respondent has pleaded that at the time of purchase of land for construction of house, the appellant had demanded Rs. 50,000/-, but, in her evidence, the said statement is found to be absent. Further, we find, the respondent could not specify a single incident of torture on any particular date. She has miserably failed to establish the nature of mental and physical torture inflicted upon the appellant towards her. Neither her parents nor any of her relatives came forward to substantiate her claim that after marriage she was subjected to torture by the appellant. At no point of time, any complaint was lodged to the police station. The appellant had to change the rented accommodation at least thrice and ultimately he had purchased his own land. 18. It is the definite case of the appellant that the respondent deserted him and he has been deprived of his marital life which a husband expects from the wife. The appellant had to change the rented accommodation at least thrice and ultimately he had purchased his own land. 18. It is the definite case of the appellant that the respondent deserted him and he has been deprived of his marital life which a husband expects from the wife. It is the specific case of the respondent that she was subjected to cruelty and for that reason she used to leave the company of the husband and permanently left the company in the year 2012. So, burden shifts upon the respondent to prove that she was subjected to torture caused by the appellant. 19. After close scrutiny of the evidence of the respondent, as we have discussed here-in-above, she could not cite a single instance of torture upon her by the appellant. Even she failed to produce her parents to substantiate her claim of torture inflicted by the appellant. The respondent even did not show a single instance that at any point of time, the appellant even slapped her. She had made just a omnibus statement to escape out her marital obligation towards her husband. Due to her acts and conduct, the appellant even had to be separated from his parents and shift to a rented accommodation to provide comfort to his wife to fulfill her desire and wishes but, even then the appellant could not succeed in his effort to assuage his wife, the respondent-herein. 20. In course of the proceeding of this appeal, this court being adopted a process of positive approach to settle the matrimonial dispute and to discourage the escalation, thought it fit to send the matter to mediation with the following observation in its order dated 12.09.2018, which is reproduced here-in-below: “12/09/2018 We have heard the parties along with their son, Shubham Majumder and also their respective counsels. We are of the view that the possibility of resolving their matrimonial disputes through the process of mediation still cannot be ruled out. Let the matter be sent to the Mediation Centre. The parties shall appear in the Mediation Centre on 26th September, 2018 at 11 O’clock and after culmination of the mediation proceedings, the matter may come up before the Court”. The report of the Mediator, is as follows: “No. F.3(28)-HC/2018/1808-09 From: A. Pandey, Coordinator, Mediation Centre, High Court of Tripura. Let the matter be sent to the Mediation Centre. The parties shall appear in the Mediation Centre on 26th September, 2018 at 11 O’clock and after culmination of the mediation proceedings, the matter may come up before the Court”. The report of the Mediator, is as follows: “No. F.3(28)-HC/2018/1808-09 From: A. Pandey, Coordinator, Mediation Centre, High Court of Tripura. High Court of Triprua, Agartala – 799010 To, The Deputy Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Tripura, Agartala. Dated, Agartala, the 6th November, 2018. Sub: Report of the mediation proceeding in connection with the FA. No. 06 of 2016 [Sri Babul Chandra Majumder versus Smt. Ratna Majumder (Sarkar)] sending thereof. Ref: Your letter No. 8318, dated 13.09.2018 and the subsequent Memo. Of Appointment issued by the Mediation Centre, High Court of Tripura vide, No. F.3(28)-HC/2008/1667-77, dated 20.09.2018. Sir, With reference to the above, I am to send herewith the report (in original) of the mediation proceeding in connection with the FA. No. 06 of 2016 [Sri Babul Chandra Majumder versus Smt. Ratna Majumder (Sarkar)] as submitted by the appointed Mediator Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Advocate, High Court Bar Association, High Court of Tripura. This is for your information and necessary action. Yours faithfully, (A. Pandey) Coordinator, Mediation Centre, High Court of Tripura. Enclosed: As stated above. 01 (one) sheet of paper. Copy for information to: The Superintendent, RFA Section, High Court of Tripura, Agartala. Coordinator, Mediation Centre, High Court of Tripura”. 21. So, the attempt of this court to settle the dispute was failed. We, personally have interacted with both, the appellant and the respondent as well as the son, but, court not reach to a suitable solution and both the parties wanted the case to be disposed of on merit. 22. As we have discussed in the preceding paragraph, in our considered opinion, the respondent could not discharge her burden to prove cruelty due to which according to her, she used to leave the company of the appellant. 22. As we have discussed in the preceding paragraph, in our considered opinion, the respondent could not discharge her burden to prove cruelty due to which according to her, she used to leave the company of the appellant. The Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala, could not notice an important aspect of the evidence of the respondent that, in one way the respondent has stated that it was the husband who used to create pressure upon her to live with her parents and on the other way she has deposed that due to torture upon her, she used to come out of the house of the appellant and stay at her father’s house. 23. The appellant and the respondent entered into wedlock on 13.07.1995 and since then a substantial and material part of the lives of both the parties had been consummated in litigation. It is evident from the record that in the year 2003, the respondent has filed an application claiming maintenance. In the year 2009, there was re-union but, it also did not last and the respondent has admitted that they are permanently separated since the year 2012. In course of the instant proceeding, the mediation also has failed. 24. So, according to us, there are no further avenues or scope for re-conciliation between the parties. In our opinion, the respondent dis-associated herself from the company of the appellant willfully and she had chosen to lead her life according to her own will and volition and that, in our view, amounts to desertion which further tent amounts to cruelty. The apex court in K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 , wherein it is observed thus [scc p.238 para 31]: “We are also satisfied that this marriage has irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court’s verdict, if the parties are not willing. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the court’s verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the court’s decree”. 25. According to us, in the background of the surrounding circumstances, there is no chance of repairing the marital tie, whoever may be responsible for that, either the appellant or the respondent or both, and this has prompted us to hold that the marriage, the solemn act of a life, is dead and has lost all its meaning, which cannot be refurbished or rebuild. Any fresh attempt for survival of the marital tie between the appellant or the respondent would be a futile exercise, which will advance more complication, which will not be a healthier one to either of them. 26. We are satisfied that all emotion and sentiment grown naturally after the marriage, upon the couple, is no longer exist and artificial reunion would be an empty formality. 27. In the backdrop of the above analysis, we have no other alternative but to hold that the respondent by her act and conduct has caused cruelty by way of deserting the appellant and the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Both the appellant and the respondent will be relieved of their respective pain and anguish, if the marriage is dissolved. Failure of amicable settlement of marital dispute in the process of mediation further proved that both of them has lost all their faith and hope in divine act of marriage. 28. In the result, the impugned judgment and order dated 23.03.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala in case no. T.S. (Divorce) 161 of 2013 is hereby set aside and quashed. The marriage between the appellant, Sri Babul Chandra Majumder and the respondent, Smt. Ratna Majumder (Sarkar) stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. 29. In view of the above, the instant appeal is disposed of. Prepare the decree accordingly.