JUDGMENT : A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in O.P. No. 112 of 2011 of Family Court, Kozhikode. The Original Petition had been filed by the petitioner/husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The parties belong to Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin community and they got married on 25.02.2003 as per the religious rites and ceremonies of the said community. A female child was born in the wedlock on 30.04.2004. The parties got separated on 25.09.2008. According to the appellant/petitioner, respondent went away from his house along with the minor child. 2. Petitioner contended that the behaviour of the respondent was not congenial to the family atmosphere on account of which he was suffering severe mental agony. Though he tried to adjust his level best, the respondent was not willing to make any adjustments. According to the petitioner, her attitude was that of a sadist and she had spoiled the peaceful atmosphere in the house. He did not derive any sexual pleasure or enjoyment from the respondent. The parents of the petitioner were also residing with them but his wife was not willing to adjust with them and used to pick up quarrels usually. On one fine occasion, without any provocation he attacked the petitioner and slapped on his face. She used to throw utensils, coconut shells etc at the petitioner. Once he thought that she would even stab him with a knife. She even threatened that she would commit suicide and kill the child. The marital life had become miserable and it was informed to the parents of the respondent. They arrived from Hyderabad and advised the respondent to co-operate with the petitioner and his family members. But there was no change in her attitude. Several mediations took place. Even then, her attitude did not change. Finally on 25.09.2008, she left the matrimonial house. 3. Respondent denied the allegations. According to her, it was the petitioner, who misbehaved and she was tolerating the same while they were living together. She contended that the petitioner does not take any independent decision and every thing was controlled by his parents. She further contended that he is a split personality. When his parents were at home, he behaved as a different person and when they were not at home, he was very cordial. She could not therefore mingle with friends or relatives of the family. She further contended that he is a split personality. When his parents were at home, he behaved as a different person and when they were not at home, he was very cordial. She could not therefore mingle with friends or relatives of the family. She denied the other allegations made by the petitioner. 4. Evidence in the case consisted of oral testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 and Exts.A1 to A3. On the side of the respondent, she was examined as RW-1. Initially the Family Court passed an order of divorce and in an appeal filed as Mat. Appeal No. 52 of 2012 before this Court, matter was remitted back in order to have a fresh consideration after considering the pleadings and evidence of the respondent as well. The Family Court after remand had considered the matter afresh and after considering the respective contentions found that the evidence was not sufficient enough to prove cruelty. 5. We heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. Apparently, this is a case in which the parties had been living separately since 25.09.2008. Though several mediations had taken place, there was no chance for re-union. The marriage was irretrievably broken. However, the question is whether this is a fit case in which divorce could be granted and whether petitioner had proved the allegations of cruelty. 7. PW-1 is none other than the petitioner who had spoken about the allegations which he had made. His main case is that on account of behaviour of the respondent, his life has become miserable and they were not in a position to live together. She misbehaved to his parents and even towards his friends. 8. Evidence of PW-2, friend of the petitioner would disclose that in his presence, the respondent had misbehaved to the petitioner. When the petitioner requested for coffee, she threatened that if such a demand is made, she would beat the petitioner as well as the visitor with broom stick. PW-3 is the uncle of the petitioner. He narrated the incident that took place on 14.07.2005. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent however would submit that as far as the incident of 2005 is concerned, thereafter the coupled lived together for another three years. That apart, the allegation was absolutely baseless. PW-3 is the uncle of the petitioner. He narrated the incident that took place on 14.07.2005. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent however would submit that as far as the incident of 2005 is concerned, thereafter the coupled lived together for another three years. That apart, the allegation was absolutely baseless. Even otherwise, while the parties are living together, there may be several instances which one may feel that the other one had committed the acts of cruelty. But definitely when claim for divorce is being made alleging cruelty, question to be considered is whether the petitioner had been suffering cruelty over a period of time. This is a case in which the petitioner had narrated several incidents which indicates the misbehaviour of his wife towards him and his parents. It is not just one instance that had been pointed out. According to him, he was suffering from the misbehaviour and mental cruelty over a period of time, right from the day of marriage itself. 10. On an overall consideration of factual aspects and evidence involved in the case supported by evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 would rather prove that husband was suffering mental cruelty at the hands of respondent. The Family Court of course, after evaluating the evidence, took a different view. We are of the view that the findings of the Family Court are perverse in so far as the Family Court had not considered the plight of the petitioner, who had been subjected to misbehaviour of his wife, over a period of time. It is not just usual wear and tear in the family. That apart, the marriage was irretrievably broken and there is no chance for living together. 11. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal ought to be allowed. Accordingly, Mat appeal is allowed. We set aside judgment in O.P. No. 112 of 2011 dated 08.11.2013 and the Original Petition is allowed as under: The marriage between the petitioner and respondent shall stands dissolved by a decree of divorce.