JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated January 10, 2020, passed by the Family Court at Port Blair in MAT Suit No.11 of 2017. FAT 02 of 2020 is the appeal of the plaintiff-husband against the rejection of his prayer for dissolution of marriage. FAT 02 of 2021 is also his appeal against the portion of the judgment and decree of the court below allowing the counter claim of the defendant-wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The two appeals were taken up together for hearing and disposal since they are directed against the same judgment and decree and involve common issues of fact and law. The Case of the plaintiff/appellant: 2. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that the plaintiff and the defendant, both Hindus, got married on May 16, 1990 as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was solemnized at Srikakulam District, Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff was unemployed at that time. After the marriage, the parties settled down at Port Blair and lived in the house of the defendant’s parents. During his stay in that house, the defendant and her parents always ill-treated the plaintiff. After six months, during their stay at Port Blair, the plaintiff was badly beaten up by his in-laws. The defendant witnessed such incident without raising any protest. The plaintiff then left for his parents’ house in the main lands. 3. After passage of some days, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant to the effect that the defendant and her parents were sorry for their acts and requested the plaintiff to return to Port Blair. The defendant also agreed to reside with the plaintiff at Port Blair in a separate rented accommodation. Accordingly in May 1991, the plaintiff returned from Andhra Pradesh to Port Blair and started residing there with the defendant in a rented accommodation at Dairy Farm. In the year 1992, the plaintiff got employment in the Central Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair as a temporary status Mazdur and the plaintiff is working in such capacity till date. 4. In January 1996, a female child was born to the couple who was named Jyothi Priya. On January 03, 2001 a second female child was born to them who was named P. Chandini Priya. The defendant always picked up quarrels with the plaintiff. 4. In January 1996, a female child was born to the couple who was named Jyothi Priya. On January 03, 2001 a second female child was born to them who was named P. Chandini Priya. The defendant always picked up quarrels with the plaintiff. The defendant never made any financial contribution to the family expenses although, as a teacher, she earned much more than the plaintiff. 5. The defendant left the matrimonial home with all her belongings along with Jyothi Priya (the second daughter was yet to be born) for her parents’ house without informing the plaintiff. The plaintiff reported the matter to the Panchayat at Diary Farm. A meeting was held. The defendant agreed to reside with the plaintiff in the house that the plaintiff had constructed so long as the plaintiff’s brother did not reside there. The defendant never shared the responsibilities for running the family. The defendant was always in the habit of abusing the plaintiff and neglected to participate in any of the family affairs. The defendant used to give money to her parents without informing the plaintiff. The defendant always doubted the plaintiff’s character. After birth of the second child, the disputes increased. The defendant wanted to reside with her parents but the plaintiff did not agree. Since April, 2001, the defendant refused to have any kind of physical relationship with the plaintiff. The defendant did not like that any of the plaintiff’s family members or relatives would visit their house. Whenever any such relatives came, the defendant picked up quarrels with them. 6. On October 31, 2010, the defendant deserted the plaintiff after creating a nuisance in the house. Thereafter, the defendant tried to implicate the plaintiff in various cases by filing complaints against him in various fora which caused mental harassment to the plaintiff. 7. The two children are residing with the plaintiff in his house. Due to the behaviour of the defendant, the children have refused to reside with their mother. 8. The defendant and her brothers have beaten up the plaintiff two times in front of their friends and relatives causing great mental depression to the plaintiff. 9. The plaintiff is not interested to reside with the defendant as she has deserted him. The degree of cruelty inflicted upon the plaintiff by the defendant is grave enough to maintain the suit for divorce. 9. The plaintiff is not interested to reside with the defendant as she has deserted him. The degree of cruelty inflicted upon the plaintiff by the defendant is grave enough to maintain the suit for divorce. Such arrogant and egoistical behaviour and attitude of the defendant has forced the plaintiff to decide to live separately from the defendant forever. The defendant could never adjust with the plaintiff. There is no chance of reunion between the parties. The case of the defendant/respondent: 10. The case of the defendant as pleaded in the written statement and counter claim is that she, at no point of time after the plaintiff returned to Port Blair post marriage, resided in her parents’ house. She and her husband actually started residing in a rented house at Haddo and after few years, they shifted to a rented house at Dairy Farm. The defendant specifically denied all the material allegations made in the plaint. She further stated that the relationship between the parties was not cordial from the very beginning as the plaintiff suffered from inferiority complex because he was working as a labourer and the defendant was a teacher. Out of such complex, the plaintiff often abused the defendant. 11. The plaintiff often demanded large amounts of money from the defendant and often assaulted the defendant. He used to take the entire salary of the defendant and utilize the same as per his own will. Even for bus fare, at times the defendant had to beg for money from the plaintiff. 12. During the period of the defendant’s pregnancy and even after delivery of the first child, the plaintiff always ill-treated the defendant because of the inferiority complex as the defendant was earning much more than the plaintiff. 13. The parents and relatives of the plaintiff often interfered with the family life of the parties. They often asked the plaintiff to send them money and the plaintiff in turn, forced the defendant to ask for money from her brothers so that the money could be sent to the plaintiff’s relatives in the main lands. 14. After the birth of the second child, the plaintiff started telling the defendant that by giving birth to a female child again the defendant has caused additional burden to the family and the defendant was badly abused by the plaintiff on several occasions in the presence of outsiders. 15. 14. After the birth of the second child, the plaintiff started telling the defendant that by giving birth to a female child again the defendant has caused additional burden to the family and the defendant was badly abused by the plaintiff on several occasions in the presence of outsiders. 15. The defendant had at no point of time refused to have physical relationship with the plaintiff. The defendant has not deserted the plaintiff and she is ready and willing to reside with the plaintiff. She has never developed enmity with her children and the plaintiff and there is every chance of reunion between the plaintiff and the defendant. 16. On October 31, 2010, the plaintiff gave some papers to the defendant and started pressurising her to put her signature on such papers. On reading the papers, the defendant was shocked to find that the same was an agreement for divorce typed on Bond Paper. On asking the plaintiff as to why he wanted divorce, the plaintiff replied that his main intention/dream of having his own house had been realized out of the defendant’s income and as such the defendant’s presence in his life was no more necessary. Upon the defendant refusing to sign the divorce papers, the plaintiff mercilessly assaulted her and pushed her out of the house. Both the daughters were threatened by the plaintiff not to accompany the defendant. To have the matter settled amicably the defendant had reported the matter to the Women’s Police Station and the plaintiff was summoned there on November 02, 2010 but the matter could not be resolved. On November 08, 2010, the plaintiff and the daughters again visited the Women’s Police State where the defendant was also present. The daughters informed the defendant that the plaintiff warned the daughters that if they speak with their mother or try to keep any relationship with her, the plaintiff will kill the defendant. 17. The defendant also approached the local Panchayat and the Chairperson of the Social Welfare Board for amicable resolution of the matrimonial dispute. But all that was in vain. 18. The defendant is very much willing to reside with the plaintiff and she does not want to break the marital tie of about 19 years. 17. The defendant also approached the local Panchayat and the Chairperson of the Social Welfare Board for amicable resolution of the matrimonial dispute. But all that was in vain. 18. The defendant is very much willing to reside with the plaintiff and she does not want to break the marital tie of about 19 years. The defendant’s presence is required in the house along with the plaintiff as the two daughters, who are in their adolescent age, require the care of both the father and the mother. For the better future of the two daughters, the family life is to be maintained and as such, the defendant intends to reside with the plaintiff so that the family prestige and respect in the society is preserved and careers of the daughters are not jeopardized. 19. The Learned Trial Judge framed ten issues on the basis of the pleadings, out of which, the material ones are as follows: i) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty? ii) Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner? iii) Is the petitioner entitled to get a decree of divorce? iv) Whether the respondent is entitled to get a decree for restitution of conjugal rights? 20. The plaintiff examined three witnesses including himself. The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff (P.W.1) was on affidavit which was a virtual reproduction of the plaint. In cross-examination he fairly stood by his case. However, he admitted that he never reported to the police the fact that he was assaulted by the defendant’s brothers. He also admitted that for the better welfare and future of the children, their association with both the parents is important. 21. P.W.2 is a labor in the Andaman Labour Force, Port Blair. He claims to have known the plaintiff from his childhood. He deposed that on October 31, 2010, in the evening he went to the plaintiff’s house and heard loud shouts coming from his house. After going inside he found there was a huge quarrel between the defendant’s brothers and the plaintiff. He asked the defendant’s brothers to cool down. They told him that the plaintiff had asked the defendant to sign on some papers. The plaintiff denied this. At that time, the defendant’s brother Mr. After going inside he found there was a huge quarrel between the defendant’s brothers and the plaintiff. He asked the defendant’s brothers to cool down. They told him that the plaintiff had asked the defendant to sign on some papers. The plaintiff denied this. At that time, the defendant’s brother Mr. Hemachandra Murthy brought some white papers and gave those to the defendant and the plaintiff and told them that as they were unable to live together, they would from then on be living separately. The defendant immediately put her signature on the paper. Her brother then gave the papers to the plaintiff. The plaintiff said that he had no problem with the defendant and there was no need of writing anything. However, he was forced to write. The plaintiff wrote a complaint to the village Panchayat Chairperson regarding the incident. He suggested that the issue should be settled amicably. The defendant and her brothers said that there could be no settlement before the Panchayat but they would go to court, police station and women cell. They went to the police station and came back at nearly 11 p.m. and told the plaintiff to go to the police station on the next day. Then they went to the maternal house of the defendant along with all her bags which were previously packed and kept ready. Before going, the defendant’s brothers stated that their sister would never return to that house again. In cross-examination P.W.2 stood by his examination-in-chief. He also said that he does not know whether the plaintiff and the defendant are ready to reside with each other. He said that in his opinion it will be proper if the parties reside together with their children. 22. P.W.3 is the elder daughter of the parties hereto. She affirmed her affidavit evidence-in-chief on September 24, 2018 when she was about 22 years old. She deposed, inter alia, to the following effect: “... I heard sometimes in January 2010 my mother telling to my father that how he was beaten by her parents after their marriage would be repeated if he does not listen to her. As far as I remember, my mother generally used to assault me for small issues. On several occasions my father requested her not to beat the children, she never paid any heed to such request. As far as I remember, my mother generally used to assault me for small issues. On several occasions my father requested her not to beat the children, she never paid any heed to such request. It was as if the decision of my mother was final and nobody should be dared enough to object. Without any effort of search my mother used to dictate terms upon my father and me which we have to follow otherwise she abused my father in filthy language in front of us and beat us brutally. I heard my mother is saying that my father is dependent upon her and without her my father is a waste. I also heard my mother saying that my father is maintaining extra marital relationship and one or the other day she will find out the same. I know that my father does not have any kind of extra marital relationship. It is now more than eight years that my mother is away from us. During these eight years my father took care of us properly. We have never noticed my father to have any other relationship. When I was 13 years old, I saw my mother shouting at my father. I have also witnessed the brothers of my mother shouting at my father. My mother told us to come along with her when she was leaving the house from the gate of the house but we refused. ” In cross-examination she reiterated what she had said in her affidavit evidence-in-chief. She further made the following statements: “... My mother filed a case for our guardianship.... My mother is willing to live with my father and I know this. I have objection if my parents are united. It is not a fact that my father was never beaten by his in-laws.... It is not a fact that my mother never shouted at my father. It is not a fact that my maternal uncle never shouted at my father. It is not a fact that my mother wanted to guide us but we did not like and as such we are supporting our father...” 23. The evidence-in-chief of the defendant being D.W.1, which was by way of affidavit, was a reproduction of the case pleaded in the written statement. In cross-examination she stated, inter alia, as follows: “Both my daughters have been residing with my husband. The evidence-in-chief of the defendant being D.W.1, which was by way of affidavit, was a reproduction of the case pleaded in the written statement. In cross-examination she stated, inter alia, as follows: “Both my daughters have been residing with my husband. Being frightened by my husband both my daughters have refused to live with me. My eldest daughter is in Japan. She has been pursuing B.Sc Agricultural course there. My younger daughter has been pursuing MBBS course in Port Blair.... I have lodged one complaint against my husband to the police station. He used to torture me physically and forced me to sign on divorce paper. After marriage, my husband used to reside at my parents’ house. After six months he went to mainland. I never wrote any letter to him.... There was a dispute between us in the year 1997 and thereafter I went to my parents’ house.... As per instruction of my mother-in-law, my husband’s younger brother came from main land and started residing with us. After few days there was again dispute between us and it went up to the Panchayat level.... Thereafter my husband’s brother shifted in a rented house. We shifted to our own house in March, 1999.... I have been living separately since 31.10.2010.... I have lodged complaint to the police station against my husband.... I lodged complaint against my husband before the Social Welfare Board.... I filed guardianship case claiming custody of my children. They were called and interrogated.... My husband has extra-marital relation with another lady. I have filed complaint before the Social Welfare Board that my husband is having extra-marital relation. It is not a fact that my husband is not having any extra marital affair and I have filed false complaint against him with the view to torture him.” 24. D.W.2 appears to be a cousin of the defendant. In his affidavit evidence-in-chief he has said that the defendant informed him that the plaintiff used to take her entire salary and used to utilise such money in his own way. He also said that the defendant had equally contributed for purchasing the land and for construction of the matrimonial house. He further said that when the dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendant, Panchayat meeting was held to resolve the dispute. He was present at such meeting and the plaintiff was advised to reside with the defendant. He also said that the defendant had equally contributed for purchasing the land and for construction of the matrimonial house. He further said that when the dispute arose between the plaintiff and the defendant, Panchayat meeting was held to resolve the dispute. He was present at such meeting and the plaintiff was advised to reside with the defendant. The plaintiff refused to do so. The defendant had stated before the Panchayat that her husband had brought some papers including Bond Paper and had put pressure upon the defendant to sign on those papers and when she refused to do so, the plaintiff assaulted her and pushed her out of the house. He further deposed that several times the defendant went to his house and told him that she was willing to reside with the family but despite requests, the plaintiff refused to take back the defendant. In cross-examination, D.W.2 stated inter alia, as follows:- “I have mentioned certain facts which is beyond the scope of my official capacity. I was the Pradhan of Bambooflat Panchayat from 1990-95.... Yashoda is my cousin. I have not mentioned in my affidavit that Yashoda is my cousin.... I do not know the name of the contractor who constructed the house mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of my affidavit-in-chief.... I cannot say who used to pay the contractor.... We never hold any proceeding in Panchayat in writing.... I had discussion with Simhachalam for the last time in the year 2014-15. I requested him to take the respondent back. I cannot say whether any case was pending then between them....” The Court: 25. The moot question that falls for determination in the present case is whether or not the plaintiff has been able to establish that he has been subjected to mental cruelty by the defendant. If he has succeeded in doing so, he is entitled to a decree of divorce and the defendant is not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Learned Trial Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case and has rejected his prayer for a decree of divorce. The Learned Trial Court has accepted the defendant’s case that the plaintiff has wrongfully deserted her, that she is ready, willing and eager to live with the plaintiff and has accordingly allowed the defendant’s prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. The Learned Trial Court has accepted the defendant’s case that the plaintiff has wrongfully deserted her, that she is ready, willing and eager to live with the plaintiff and has accordingly allowed the defendant’s prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. We have to consider, whether or not the Learned Trial Court was right in coming to such conclusions. 26. Before 1976, ‘cruelty’ was not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By Act 68 of 1976 ‘cruelty’ was incorporated as a ground for divorce. After amendment, Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows:- “Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty.” 27. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, ‘the said Act’) does not define the term ‘cruelty’. This is because the concept of cruelty and in particular, mental cruelty, is such that it is impossible to arrive at a precise and exhaustive definition of the same. Whether or not the conduct of either party to a marriage amounts to cruelty, must be adjudged by considering the facts and circumstances of each case. Notwithstanding the impossibility or impracticability of formulating a precise and uniformly applicable definition of cruelty, one can safely form an idea of the crux of cruel conduct in a matrimonial alliance, by relying upon the opinion of Lord Pearce that ‘when reprehensible conduct or departure from the normal standards of conjugal kindness causes any injury to health or an apprehension of it, it is, I think, cruelty if a reasonable person, after taking due account of the temperament and all the other particular circumstances would consider the conduct complained of is such that the spouse should not be called on to endure it.’ These observations of Lord Pearce were relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli: (2006) 4 SCC 558 at Para - 44. 28. 28. In the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi: (1998) 1 SCC 105, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there are varying degrees and concepts of matrimonial duties and responsibilities; it may so happen that when in one case, a certain set of facts is stigmatised as cruelty, similar set of facts in another case may not be so. In other words, the cruelty alleged may largely depend upon the type of life the parties are accustomed to or their economic or social conditions and it may also depend upon the culture and human values to which they attach importance. 29. ‘Cruelty’, as a ground of divorce, as contemplated by Section 13(1)(i-a) of the said Act, includes within its sweep both physical and mental cruelty, whether intentional or unintentional. If it is physical cruelty, then it is a question of fact and degree. In case of mental cruelty, the 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 spouse. Whether as a result of such conduct, it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, ultimately, is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. In order to constitute cruelty, the conduct complained of must be grave so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. However, it must be something more serious than ‘ordinary wear and tear of married life’. In this connection one may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur: (2005) 2 SCC 22 . 30. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat: (1994) 1 SCC 337 , at Paragraph 16 of the reported judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, inter alia, as follows:- “In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively...” 31. In Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta: (2002) 5 SCC 706 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.” In the above case, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the wife’s refusal to cohabit with the husband, stubbornness and constant refusal to undergo requisite medical tests, lodging of false police complaints against the husband and his parents and other erratic behaviour of the wife that led to an adverse effect on the mental condition of the husband, amounted to mental cruelty (The emphasis is ours). 32. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur (supra) the Supreme Court held that the casting of aspersions on the conduct, fidelity and character of the husband by the wife can be held to be conduct that causes indelible mental agony to the husband. In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (supra), both parties to the marriage had engaged in mudslinging and derogatory conduct against each other. Despite a long drawn legal procedure for divorce stretching from the District Court, right up to the Supreme Court, the respondent (wife) refused to give consent for mutual divorce, even though there was nothing to suggest that continuance of such matrimonial relation would be at all possible. The Supreme Court, at Paragraph 83 of the reported judgment observed as follows:- “Even at this stage, the respondent does not want divorce by mutual consent. From the analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, it is clear that the respondent has resolved to live in agony only to make life a miserable hell for the appellant as well. This type of adamant and callous attitude, in the context of the facts of this case, leaves no manner of doubt in our minds that the respondent is bent upon treating the appellant with mental cruelty. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again.” 33. It is abundantly clear that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of their coming together, or living together again.” 33. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh: (2007) 4 SCC 511 , the Supreme Court, by way of illustration enumerated quite a few circumstances, albeit not exhaustive, which could be regarded as amounting to mental cruelty. At Paragraph 101 of the reported judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:- “No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties. It becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.” (The emphasis is ours). 34. In Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate: (2003) 6 SCC 334 at Paragraph 7 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:- “The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.” 35. In G.V.N. Kameswara Rao v. G. Jabilli: (2002) 2 SCC 296 , the Family Court had allowed the husband’s prayer for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The High Court allowed the wife’s appeal and set aside the decree of divorce. While allowing the husband’s appeal, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 8 of the reported judgment observed as follows:- “Another important incident, which found favour with the Family Court, is that the respondent had filed a criminal complaint before the police alleging that she was beaten by the appellant and his mother. The appellant and his mother were called to the police station and they had to be there for more than 10 hours. The explanation offered by the respondent for this incident is far from satisfactory. The appellant and his mother were called to the police station and they had to be there for more than 10 hours. The explanation offered by the respondent for this incident is far from satisfactory. According to the respondent she was being ill-treated by the appellant and his mother and on one day, while preparing the breakfast when she used the blender for grinding the pulses her mother-in-law got angry and scolded her saying that she had not brought any article from her house, so she should not have used the blender. Further, the respondent alleged that the appellant and his mother threw away all her bags and clothes and the appellant’s mother asked her son to get the respondent out and the appellant became wild and gave a blow to the respondent with a sharp-edged weapon and it was under those circumstances that with bleeding injuries, she had gone to the police station and filed a complaint before the police. It is important to note that the police did not register any case evidently as it was a domestic quarrel and not of a serious nature, and the incident shows the innate lack of self-control which had driven the respondent to this inexorable conduct. But the humiliation and agony suffered by the appellant and his mother, considering their status in life and the social circumstances, was too much.” 36. One thing that clearly emerges from the above discussion is that the phrase ‘mental cruelty’, or even the phrase ‘physical cruelty’, is incapable of a precise definition that can be of universal application. However, in contrast to ‘physical cruelty’ which necessarily involves an element of corporeal torture, ‘mental cruelty’ is something abstract. Broadly speaking, ‘mental cruelty’ means inflicting mental torture on the petitioner spouse by the respondent by his/her words and conduct. The torture must be such so as to cause such grave mental hurt/injury to the complaining spouse as would make it impossible for him/her to continue to have a matrimonial relationship with the other spouse. It is impossible to exhaustively enumerate what words/conduct of a party to a marriage would amount to meting out mental cruelty to the other party to the marriage. One has to assess in a given factual matrix as to whether the words/demeanour of a spouse would amount to treating the other spouse with mental cruelty. It is impossible to exhaustively enumerate what words/conduct of a party to a marriage would amount to meting out mental cruelty to the other party to the marriage. One has to assess in a given factual matrix as to whether the words/demeanour of a spouse would amount to treating the other spouse with mental cruelty. The factors that are to be taken into account in ascertaining whether one spouse has treated the other with mental cruelty, include, the social status of the parties, their educational level and the society they move in. A feeling of anguish, agony, disappointment and/or frustration caused in the mind of one spouse by the conduct of the other is normally what prompts the former to allege mental cruelty. To that extent, it is a state of mind and therefore subjective. However, whether or not the complaining spouse has been able to establish mental cruelty being meted out by the other spouse, can be objectively assessed by looking at the attending facts and circumstances in which the parties to the marriage have been living. If it appears to a reasonable man of ordinary prudence that the conduct of one of the partners is such that the other partner cannot be expected to live or continue matrimonial relationship with him/her, mental cruelty can be said to have been established. Naturally, one stray incident of cruel behaviour will not suffice. The petitioner spouse must show that he/she has been subjected to mental cruelty over a reasonable period of time causing such mental wound to him/her that it would be unfair and unjust to expect him/her to live with the other spouse. 37. In the present case, even according to the respondent, the relationship between the parties was not cordial since the very inception of the marriage. Allegations and counter allegations of physical cruelty have been made by the parties against each other. The appellant says that the respondent on more than one occasion instigated her parents to beat up the appellant. He also says that the respondent used to abuse her in filthy language in front of the children and even outsiders. Even if we discount the evidence of the appellant in this regard on the premises that the same would be self-serving, the evidence of P.W.3 who is the elder daughter of the parties hereto, clearly corroborates the said allegations of the appellant. Even if we discount the evidence of the appellant in this regard on the premises that the same would be self-serving, the evidence of P.W.3 who is the elder daughter of the parties hereto, clearly corroborates the said allegations of the appellant. P.W.3 was 22 years old when she affirmed her affidavit evidence-in-chief, i.e., she was a mature adult. We have no reason to suspect that P.W.3 is taking sides with the appellant. P.W.3 has fairly stated that the respondent is willing to live with the appellant but she has objections if her parents are united. Thus, even the elder daughter is of the view that there cannot be a successful re-union of her parents. 38. It also squarely comes out from the evidence of P.W.3 that the respondent’s brothers used to abuse the appellant. P.W.3 also deposed that the respondent used to tell the appellant that he is dependent on her and without her he is a waste. On this point she was not cross-examined. 39. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the respondent was in the habit of demeaning, belittling and insulting the appellant not only in front of their children but even in the presence of outsiders. If a spouse is repeatedly abused, treated harshly and told that he/she is good for nothing, then that surely amounts to mental cruelty. 40. The appellant has also contended that the respondent always doubted his character. In fact, it comes out from the evidence on record that the respondent made complaints before various forums like Social Welfare Board and also police complaint against the appellant. This, according to us, would also be an element of mental cruelty. Imputing infidelity to a spouse particularly in the Indian social context, would definitely amount to treating that spouse with mental cruelty. Character and reputation are the two most important and valuable things that a human being possesses. There can be few conducts more cruel than assassinating the character of a spouse on frivolous and unsubstantiated grounds. It further appears that the police did not find any merit in the complaint made by the respondent against the appellant since the police did not take any action on the basis of such complaint. False police complaint lodged by a spouse against the other spouse is also definitely a manifestation of mental cruelty. 41. It further appears that the police did not find any merit in the complaint made by the respondent against the appellant since the police did not take any action on the basis of such complaint. False police complaint lodged by a spouse against the other spouse is also definitely a manifestation of mental cruelty. 41. Even in the pleadings, i.e., the written statement filed by the respondent before the Learned Trial Court, the respondent has made allegations against the appellant which are highly pejorative. She has alleged that the appellant used to take away the entire salary of the respondent and utilize the same as per his own will. She has further said that the appellant suffers from inferiority complex since he was working as a labourer and the respondent was a teacher. She has alleged extra-marital affairs on part of the appellant. None of these allegations have been substantiated or proved by any independent witness. On the contrary, P.W.3 has clearly stated that the appellant was not involved with any other lady. Such serious but apparently untrue allegations made by the respondent against the appellant clearly shows that the love, affection and trust on the basis of which a matrimonial relationship builds up and survives, has reduced to the point of naught. There does not appear to be any feeling left between the parties hereto, nor any attachment. It is not in dispute that the parties have been living separately since the year 2010. On an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal evidence on record, we are of the view that we will be doing a great disservice to the pious and solemn institution called marriage, if we do not grant the appellant’s prayer for divorce but compel the parties to live together. The parties have clearly fallen apart. Feelings of animosity and acrimony have developed in the minds of each of the parties against the other. We are of the view that it will be in the best interest of both the parties if their marriage is dissolved. It is of considerable importance that the elder daughter of the parties hereto also feels the same. 42. Feelings of animosity and acrimony have developed in the minds of each of the parties against the other. We are of the view that it will be in the best interest of both the parties if their marriage is dissolved. It is of considerable importance that the elder daughter of the parties hereto also feels the same. 42. In so far as the pleadings and evidence of the respondent is concerned as regards her willingness and desire to co-habit with the appellant and continue with the matrimonial tie, we are convinced that the same is totally lacking in genuine intent. The facts and circumstances of the case have led us to believe that the so-called eagerness of the respondent to continue living with the appellant is pretended and a ruse on the basis of which she obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. We feel that the respondent has done this only with the vindictive motive to further ruin the mental peace of the appellant and prolong his agony, even at the cost of her own mental peace. 43. As regards welfare of the children, both the daughters are adults by now. They are pursuing their respective careers. None of them is residing with their parents presently. In any event, the parties to the marriage have been living separately for about 11 years now. We do not think that legal separation of the parents can have any further adverse effect on the welfare of the children. 44. Marriage is an institution that admits man and woman to family life. It is expected to be a stable relationship in which a man and a woman are socially permitted to live together. The term ‘marriage’ can refer to a legal contract or civil status or religious rite or social practice. Essentially it is the outcome of a man and a woman of marriageable age deciding to tread the journey of life together. Mutual love, affection and respect are the foundations and pillars of a successful marriage. Just like a house collapses when its foundation gives in or its supporting pillars break down, a marriage also collapses when the parties to it cease to care for each other and the feeling of love, affection and respect is replaced by that of hatred/indifference and contempt. Just like a house collapses when its foundation gives in or its supporting pillars break down, a marriage also collapses when the parties to it cease to care for each other and the feeling of love, affection and respect is replaced by that of hatred/indifference and contempt. In such a case, the matrimonial relationship is reduced to a sham and the marriage continues to be only one on paper. The instant case, in our opinion, is such a case. The parties to the marriage evidently have no regard or any positive feeling for each other. They have stopped caring for each other long time back. The marriage remains only as a facade. There does not appear to be any real chance of the parties residing together once again. The marriage has broken down irretrievably, under these circumstances, to direct continuance of the marriage would only be prolonging the agony of both the parties or at least of the appellant. 45. We have carefully perused the Judgment of the Learned Trial Court. We are afraid that we are unable to agree with the assimilation of evidence on record and appreciation of the applicable law by the Learned Trial Judge. 46. In the result, these appeals succeed. The judgment and decree under appeal are reversed, both as regards rejection of the appellant’s prayer for divorce and granting of the respondent’s prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. We pass a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the parties hereto. 47. FAT 002 of 2020 and FAT 002 of 2021 are accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.