JUDGMENT : T. Krishnavalli, J. 1. These Appeals have been directed against the Common Order, dated 21.6.2010 passed in O.P. Nos. 3125 of 2013 & 1855 of 2014 by the 1st Additional Principal Judge (1st Additional Family Court), Chennai. 2. The short facts of the case is that the marriage between the Appellant/Wife and the Respondent/Husband was solemnized on 21.6.2010 in the Petitioner's father house in Hoogly District, West Bengal and after marriage, they lived together in the Matrimonial home at the Petitioner's house in Chennai for three years and the Petitioner is studying B.Com and the Respondent worked as a Craftsman in the shop run by the Petitioner's father and later the Respondent has deliberately creating situations to prevent the Petitioner from qualifying in her studies and wanted the Petitioner's family as his slaves and due to it, both of them living separately and the couples have no children. Hence, the wife filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. Whereas the husband filed a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 4. It is admitted by both sides that the marriage was solemnised between the Appellant/Wife and the Respondent/Husband and both lived together in the Matrimonial home at the Petitioner's father house in Chennai. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Wife argued that there was no other material evidence to prove the cruelty alleged to be committed by the Respondent/Husband, except the oral evidence of the Appellant/Wife and between the husband and wife, if any cruelty is caused by one person to another, only the victim would say the cruelty and she could establish the same only by oral evidence, for which no documentary evidence cannot be produced and the mental cruelty can be proved only by oral evidence not by any documentary evidence and the Respondent/Husband suspected the character of the Appellant/Wife and when she spoke with others and the Respondent/Husband subjected the Appellant/Wife to cruelty and hence, she filed Petition for divorce and only after filing the Petition for divorce by the Appellant/Wife, the Respondent/Husband filed the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights and there is no chance for reunion, since the Respondent/Husband subject the Appellant/Wife to cruelty and prays that both CMAs have to be allowed. 6. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Husband argued that the conduct of the Respondent was not of such character and gravity so as to give rise to reasonable apprehension in the mind of the Appellant that it is harmful to live together and none of the incident or conduct of this Respondent could be termed as grave and weighty to be treated as cause of cruelty and the Appellant had abandoned this Respondent from his conjugal domicile and she is the one who refused to resume marital life without any valid reasons and this Respondent acted as a dutiful husband and not a wrong-doer in the family life at any point of time and this Respondent restricted the Appellant from sending and receiving late night messages from unknown persons only to safeguard her from unwanted problems and this will not amount to cruelty and hence, the Appellant/Wife is not entitled for divorce and prays that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are to be dismissed. 7. The Appellant/Wife filed H.M.O.P. No. 3125 of 2013 for divorce and the Respondent/Husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 1855 of 2014 for restitution of conjugal rights. The contention of the Appellant/Wife is that the Respondent/Husband has not chosen to controvert the specific allegations made by the Appellant/Wife in his counter except general denial. The Appellant/Wife in H.M.O.P. No. 3125 of 2013 stated that on 29.3.2013, her husband assaulted her with wooden log and due to it, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Chennai. To prove it, the Appellant/Wife filed Ex. P4-O.P Chit. On careful perusal of Ex. P4, it is stated that the Appellant/Wife was assaulted by her husband. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Husband, while Cross-examining wife put a question Hence, on careful perusal of the above cross-examination, it reveals that the Respondent/Husband himself admitted that he assaulted his wife. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the cross-examination of PW 1. 9. PW 1 during his cross-examination as follows: 10. Further, on careful perusal of the Ex. P4, it reveals that on 29.3.2013, the Respondent/Husband assaulted his wife and due to it, she was taken to the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai. PW 1 during her cross-examination explained why she has not given any Complaint for the assault by her husband. In this case, the Respondent/Husband was examined as RW 1 in H.M.O.P. No. 3125 of 2013. P4, it reveals that on 29.3.2013, the Respondent/Husband assaulted his wife and due to it, she was taken to the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai. PW 1 during her cross-examination explained why she has not given any Complaint for the assault by her husband. In this case, the Respondent/Husband was examined as RW 1 in H.M.O.P. No. 3125 of 2013. RW 1 during his cross-examination stated that Ex. P4 was falsely obtained to show that he subjected his wife to cruelty. But Ex. P4-OP Chit was given on 30.3.2013 and it was issued by the Doctor of Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai. After treatment taken by PW 1 in the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai, she took treatment in the Private Hospital. Further, RW 1 himself admitted that he assaulted his wife on 29.3.2013. 11. RW 1 during his evidence stated that he restricted his wife from sending and receiving late right messages from unknown persons and only to safeguard her from unwanted problems and this will not amount to cruelty. For that, PW 1 stated that she and her father have known a Van Driver and she and the Van Driver studied the same subject and to clarify her doubts in her studies, she used to make calls to the Van Driver and further PW 1 denied the above allegations stated by her husband. RW 1 during his cross-examination admitted that the Van Driver was known to the family of his wife. To prove that PW 1 received and sent messages to the unknown persons, no document was produced on the side of the Respondent. Hence, the evidence of RW 1 stating that he restricted his wife from sending and receiving late night messages to safe guard his wife will not amount to cruelty is not at all acceptable. 12. Further, RW 1 stated during his evidence that when he informed the activities of PW 1 regarding messages to her boy friends to the parents of PW 1, for that, he was thrown out of the house in the year 2013. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that he assaulted PW 1 and she was admitted in the Hospital. In order to escape from the above incident, he falsely stated that he was thrown out of the house of PW 1. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that he assaulted PW 1 and she was admitted in the Hospital. In order to escape from the above incident, he falsely stated that he was thrown out of the house of PW 1. Further, RW 1 filed the Petition for restitution of conjugal rights only after the Appellant filed Petition for Divorce. If really he has not assaulted his wife, he will definitely take steps for reunion at the earliest point of time. 13. The term 'Cruelty' is a state of mind and feeling with one of the parties due to the behavioural attitude of the other. In fact, "cruelty" as per Section 13(1)(a) is to be construed as a behaviour by one party towards the other, which cause a genuine and reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the wedlock relationship with the other. In other words, mental cruelty is of such nature, the parties cannot be reasonably be expected to live together. Like physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to be proved by a direct evidence, as per the Division Bench decision in Victor Sebastain v. Thorulatha, 2006 (4) RCR (Civ.) at p. 579 (Knt.). 14. Where there is a proof of wanton course of conduct on the part of a person, intended to hurt and humiliate other spouse, and such a conduct is persisted, cruelty can be inferred easily. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil, 2007 (1) CTC 266 : 2007 (3) SCJ 458 at p. 459, it is held that 'neither actual nor presumed intention to hurt the other spouse is a necessary element in cruelty. 15. For passing a Decree of Divorce on the ground of cruelty, the acts complained of ought to be so grave and weighty so as to arrive at the conclusion that the husband cannot reasonably be expected to live with the wife. In a Petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Petitioner has to prove that after the solemnisation of marriage the Respondent treated him with cruelty as per the decision in Sukharam Yadav v. Nirupama Yadav, 2007 (3) MPLJ 396 at p. 398 (M.P). In a Petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Petitioner has to prove that after the solemnisation of marriage the Respondent treated him with cruelty as per the decision in Sukharam Yadav v. Nirupama Yadav, 2007 (3) MPLJ 396 at p. 398 (M.P). The dissolution of marriage is the last and the last option a Court of Law must exercise in a given situation. 16. The term 'Cruelty' mentioned in Clause (i-a) denotes and includes both physical and mental cruelty. It is to be noted that Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is silent as regards the nature or degree of cruelty which needs to be established in any Matrimonial case as per the decision in Poonam Mehta alias Poonam Prasad v. Naresh Prasad, AIR 2009 (NOC) 505 (Orissa)]. If the cruelty is physical, it is an aspect of degree which is essential. However, if it is mental, an enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the other party whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be injurious or harmful to live with the other party. Finally, it is matter of inference to be deducted by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. 17. In Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur, AIR 2009 SC 589 , it is observed that there must be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. In Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edition, at page 2004) the term 'Mental Cruelty' is defined as follows: "As a ground for divorce, one spouse's course of conduct (not involving actual violence) that creates such anguish that it endangers the lie, physical health, or mental health of the other spouse [vide Surender Pal v. Kanwaljit Kaur, (II), 2008 DMC 183 at p 187 (Delhi). Furthermore, it is not necessary to establish that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the Petitioner as per the decision Vimla Mehra v. K.S. Mehra, 158 (2009) DLT 136 at p. 150 (Delhi). 18. Furthermore, it is not necessary to establish that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the Petitioner as per the decision Vimla Mehra v. K.S. Mehra, 158 (2009) DLT 136 at p. 150 (Delhi). 18. In regard to the expression 'Cruelty' as seen under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a Court of Law should be satisfied that such differences surfacing from the conduct of either party to the marriage makes it impossible for the other spouse to continue to live with him/her. Intention to be cruel is not a requisite element of 'cruelty' as contemplated as per Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is needless for this Court to state that if bitter water are flowing it is not necessary to enquire from which source they spring. The motive behind the cruelty has paled into insignificance in the present day changing society. To put it shortly, in Matrimonial matters, the feelings and attitudes of minds are material as per the decision Neelu Kohil v. Naveen Kohil, AIR 2004 All. 1 . 19. The principle, thus, is whether in the facts and circumstances of given case, a party has been able to make a case of grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty would depend upon the pleadings and evidence and there can be no straight jacket formula nor an exhaustive list of instances can be prepared where cruelty is said to have been committed by one or other party to the marriage. 20. For all the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that the Appellant/Wife has proved her case and hence, she is entitled to get decree of divorce. 21. In the result, both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed, setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the I Additional Principal Judge (1st Additional Family Court), Chennai, passed in O.P. Nos. 3125 of 2013 and 1855 of 2014, dated 6.3.2017. As a sequence thereto, Decree of Divorce is granted to the Appellant/Wife on the ground of cruelty and the marriage solemnised between the Appellant/Wife and the Respondent/Wife on 21.6.2010 stands dissolved. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.