JUDGMENT : Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. 1. This appeal is against a judgment and decree passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, South Andaman, Port Blair in MAT Suit No. 227 of 2017 dated 17 February 2021 (the decree). 2. Briefly, the appellant married the respondent on 16 June 2006 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Thereafter, on 24 November 2006 the respondent converted to Islam as per extant Muslim laws. Initially, the appellant and respondent resided together at Baratang. The marriage was consummated and the parties had a female child on 28 April 2008. Both parties resided together with their child at Ferrargunj until June 2016. Subsequently, the appellant was transferred to Diglipur. The appellant is a cook working with the Directorate of Health Services, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port Blair and is currently posted at the Health Centre, Kishore Nagar, Diglipur, North Andaman District. The parties have been living separately since 23 May 2017. 3. It is alleged by the appellant that soon after their marriage, the respondent inflicted physical and mental torture upon the appellant. The appellant also complains of the respondent not performing her matrimonial obligations as the respondent refused to look after her mother-in-law who was living at Lamba Pahar, and later expired in 2012. 4. The appellant contends that the respondent had lodged false complaints against the appellant, with the Police Authorities at Ferrargunj and with the Women Cell, Aberdeen Police Station alleging that he was having an illicit relationship with a colleague. 5. The appellant also contends that the appellant has been subjected to severe mental and physical cruelty which should be considered by this Court and a decree for divorce be granted. In support of its contentions, the appellant relies on the decision reported in Joydeep Majumdar V Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (Unreported decision in Civil Appeal No 3786-3787 of 2020 dated 26 February 2021). 6. The respondent alleges that the appellant had repeatedly assaulted the respondent ever since their marriage. It is also alleged that the appellant is an alcoholic and had committed multiple incidents of assault. 7. The respondent also contends that, the respondent had always fulfilled her matrimonial obligations and had taken care of her mother-in-law until her death. Moreover, at the time of leaving for Diglipur, the appellant had promised to maintain the respondent and their child. It is also alleged that the appellant is an alcoholic and had committed multiple incidents of assault. 7. The respondent also contends that, the respondent had always fulfilled her matrimonial obligations and had taken care of her mother-in-law until her death. Moreover, at the time of leaving for Diglipur, the appellant had promised to maintain the respondent and their child. However, after initially paying maintenance of Rs.15,000/-, the appellant stopped making any payments to the respondent. Ultimately, the respondent was compelled to lodge complaints with the Police Authorities at Ferrargunj and with the Women Cell, Aberdeen Police Station. 8. In 24 American Jurisprudence 2d, the term "mental cruelty" has been defined as follows : Mental Cruelty is a course of unprovoked conduct toward one's spouse which causes embarrassment, humiliation, and anguish so as to render the spouse's life miserable and unendurable. The plaintiff must show a course of conduct on the part of the defendant which so endangers the physical or mental health of the plaintiff as to render continued cohabitation unsafe or improper, although the plaintiff need not establish actual instances of physical abuse. 9. In Joydeep Majumdar V Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (Supra) it has been held that there are no fixed parameters in determining the issue of cruelty in matrimonial matters. Every divorce case has its peculiar facts and circumstances. 10. I find that the Trial Court in passing the impugned decree has considered all facts of the case and has elaborately dealt with the issue of both mental and physical cruelty which had been raised by the appellant. The Trial Court found there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation of cruelty. The impugned decree is well reasoned. I find no error of law nor perversity nor any other ground which warrants any interference with the impugned decree. The mental cruelty which the appellant complains of consists of the complaints filed by the respondent against the appellant with the Police Authorities at Ferrargunj and with the Women Cell at the Aberdeen Police Station. The Trial Court has held that the mere filing of a complaint cannot be treated as cruelty. I find that the complaint was not filed with the intention to cause harm to the professional or social status of the appellant. On the contrary, it was an attempt made by the respondent to claim maintenance which the appellant had deliberately stopped providing. I find that the complaint was not filed with the intention to cause harm to the professional or social status of the appellant. On the contrary, it was an attempt made by the respondent to claim maintenance which the appellant had deliberately stopped providing. The deposition of the witnesses also does not support the case of cruelty. Thus, I find nothing on record to prove the aspect of cruelty which is the solitary ground on which the appellant relies on to obtain a decree for divorce. It is well settled that a party, who seeks for divorce on the ground of cruelty, must prove such allegation with cogent and satisfactory evidence. 11. In Dastane vs. Dastane reported in AIR 1975 SC 1534 it has been held that the proceeding under the Act being of a civil nature, the word ‘satisfied’ in this connection must mean ‘satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities’ and not ‘satisfied beyond reasonable doubt’. The satisfaction of the Court must be based on legal evidence. I find that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation of cruelty. The appellant has been unable to establish any other ground warranting the passing of a decree for divorce. Hence, the impugned decree does not justify any interference whatsoever. 12. In view of the aforesaid, FAT No 004 of 2021 stands dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. I agree. - Tirthankar Ghosh, J.