JUDGMENT : 1. None appears for the respondent-husband. The service records are before the court. Hence we have formed an impression that he is intentionally staying away from this court. 2. We are sorry to say that the learned judge of the court below in passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th April 2018 has committed several serious errors. 3. The suit was by the wife-appellant against the respondent-husband asking for a decree of divorce under section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The only witness at the trial was the appellant. She led evidence in examination-in-chief through an affidavit. It was a narration of the case in the petition. Her deposition, which is significant, in our opinion, is that her husband habitually came home very late at night or sometimes did not come back at all. He was abusive towards her. He was also very quarrelsome. She described this as mental cruelty. 4. We find that on cross-examination the husband just said that he was a teacher in Talpukur Girls’ High School imparting physical education. Thereafter, the hearing of the case was adjourned for further cross-examination. He did not turn up on the day fixed for cross-examination and the evidence was closed. 5. In such circumstances, the evidence adduced by the wife in the absence of contradiction ought to have been taken as proved. Instead of doing so, the learned judge has himself, without any basis, noted that the respondent was in the police, the police had inflexible duty hours, shifts were extended and therefore his absence was justified. Although the respondent was not represented during argument, the learned judge on his own has quoted the authority on mental cruelty, e.g. Hemali Bandesh v. Bindesh Jayartilal, (2014) 1 DMC 243 (Bom), without even discussing the case. 6. Mental cruelty, in our opinion, is the infliction by a party on the other party permanent and deep mental pain and agony. A learned judge trying a suit alleging mental cruelty, on the evidence, has to subjectively assess whether such kind of a feeling was caused by one party to the other. The law comes later. No such effort had been made in this case as we have said earlier. In the facts and circumstances, the case of the plaintiff-appellant stood proved. A learned judge trying a suit alleging mental cruelty, on the evidence, has to subjectively assess whether such kind of a feeling was caused by one party to the other. The law comes later. No such effort had been made in this case as we have said earlier. In the facts and circumstances, the case of the plaintiff-appellant stood proved. On the above evidence, it is not difficult to hold that the respondent inflicted mental cruelty on her. 7. We set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 19th April 2018 and pronounce a decree of dissolution of marriage by divorce. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 8. We have not gone into the question of custody as it was neither before the trial court nor before us. 9. The department is directed to draw of the decree expeditiously.