JUDGMENT T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Unakoti Tripura in Title Suit (Divorce) 24 of 2012. 2. The facts in brief, which may be relevant for the present purpose and as manifested on the record are that the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 29.02.1996 as per Hindu rites and they started living together as husband and wife in the house of the respondent herein. They passed happy conjugal life for 4(four) years, during that period, a female child and a male child were born. Both of them now have attained majority. After about 4(four) years of the birth of their children, the appellant-wife herein showed displeasure to perform household works and behaved very rudely upon her husband and his old-age mother. The husband-respondent and his old-age mother objected but his wife tried to assault them with 'dao', 'lathi' etc., by using bad language. As such finding no other alternative, the husband-respondent herein was compelled to live separately from 05.05.2010 along with his mother and his two children and since then the wife-appellant herein also maintained distance from him. Aggrieved by such circumstance, the husband-respondent herein filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage tie with his wife titled as T.S. (Divorce)24 of 2012 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura. 3. The above-mentioned T.S. (Divorce)24 of 2012 originally proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.08.2012 and exparte judgment was pronounced on 08.02.2013 in T.S. (Div)24/2012. Subsequently, this case was restored vide order dated 25.04.2014 on the prayer of the respondent-wife passed in Civil Misc. Case No.01/2013. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Court below:- 'i) Whether the petition is maintainable in its present form and nature? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce as prayed for? iii) Any other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled thereto?' 5. The petitioner-husband in that instant T.S. (Divorce) examined himself as P.W.1 and also produced another witness, namely, Smt. Dhrupati Majumder as P.W.2 and they were duly cross-examined. 6. ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce as prayed for? iii) Any other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled thereto?' 5. The petitioner-husband in that instant T.S. (Divorce) examined himself as P.W.1 and also produced another witness, namely, Smt. Dhrupati Majumder as P.W.2 and they were duly cross-examined. 6. On the other hand, the respondent-wife in that instant T.S.(Divorce) examined herself as opposite party-witness No.1 and another witness namely, Sri Hiralal Sarkar as opposite party-witness No.2, and they were also duly cross-examined. 7. Having appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the statement of the respective witnesses, the learned Judge, Family Court Kailashahar Unakoti Tripura decreed the divorce petition. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 30.06.2015, the appellant-wife herein filed the instant first appeal and prayed for the following reliefs:- 'In the facts and circumstances narrated herein above, it is most humbly prayed that Your Lordships will be graciously pleased to admit this appeal, issue notice upon the respondent, call for the records and after hearing both the sides be graciously pleased enough to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Unakoti Tripura in Title Suit (Divorce) 24 of 2012.' 9. We have heard Mrs. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife herein. None appears for the respondent-husband. 10. This Court feels that the allegation made against the wife-petitioner with regard to cruelty on the ground of picking up quarrel with her husband-respondent and his mother and abusing with filthy language and causing mental cruelty remains un-established to the satisfaction of this Court. Since, both the parties are staying separately, for quite a long time and in view of series of complaints and the counter complaints, against each other, this Court feels that it is not a case for reunion and by force, this Court cannot make them stay together. Accordingly, the divorce granted by the Court below in favour of the husband against the wife is confirmed and in so far as the decree passed by the Court below is confirmed. 11. With the above observation and direction, this instant appeal stands disposed of.