JUDGMENT ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Present First appeal has arisen out of judgment and decree passed by additional District Judge, 6th Court alipore, South 24 parganas in Mat Suit No. 31/2010. By the impugned judgment learned Trial Court was pleased to pass a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. 2. Petitioner's/ husband's case in a nutshell is that petitioner was married with the opposite party according to Hindu rites and custom on 9th July, 2008 and said marriage was an arranged marriage. Both the parties after marriage started residing together as husband and wife at the matrimonial home of the respondent, though no issue was born due to such wed-lock. 3. It is alleged that the respondent is reluctant to do house-hold works and she used to pre-occupy herself without caring for the petitioner or his parents and she used to persist petitioner to live in a separate accommodation, leaving the parents of the petitioner. Moreover the respondent is ill tempered and used to misbehave with the petitioner and her parents and she also used to show disrespect to her in laws in every possible way. The respondent is also suspicious and used to check the mobile phone of the petitioner everyday as to whether the petitioner is keeping in touch with any women. The marriage between the parties did not work out at all as the respondent inflicted immense cruelty to the petitioner and made his life horrible. Respondent finally left her matrimonial home with her belongings and ornament on 23.05.2009 and since then she has been living separately. 4. During the pendency of the suit petitioner by way of amendment of plaint incorporated that after receiving summon of the instant suit, the respondent started threatening over telephone. Respondent came to the father's house of the petitioner and therefore she made a chaos and threatened the petitioner and his family members to face dire consequences, if the petitioner would not agree to take separate accommodation elsewhere. Thereafter in the month of September, 2013 at about 9 a.m., respondent suddenly came at her matrimonial home and started to cry loudly and also abused petitioner and all other family members, after giving an ultimatum for making separate arrangement for her stay with the petitioner elsewhere, except her matrimonial home. Thereafter in the month of September, 2013 at about 9 a.m., respondent suddenly came at her matrimonial home and started to cry loudly and also abused petitioner and all other family members, after giving an ultimatum for making separate arrangement for her stay with the petitioner elsewhere, except her matrimonial home. The respondent also made complaint before legal aid authority, where the petitioner was advised by the said authority to take his wife by arranging a separate accommodation, but the authority concerned did not appreciate that the suit for divorce is pending between the parties. accordingly petitioner prayed for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. 5. The respondent/wife contested the suit by fling written statement and denied all material allegations made in the plaint and put the petitioner to strict proof thereof. Respondent denies and disputes that she is hot tempered or that she used to misbehave with the petitioner or with his parents or that she used to show disrespect to her in-laws. She also denied that she is suspicious or used to check mobile phone of the petitioner or that she inflicted any kind of cruelty upon the petitioner. The respondent states that all her personal ornaments still lying at her matrimonial home. In fact the respondent went to her parental house at Nabadwip to see her ailing mother and intended to stay there for few days to attend her mother and she went there with the consent and approval of the petitioner and at that time the relationship between the parties was good and petitioner expressed that after few days he will be going to Nabadwip to bring her back to the matrimonial home. Subsequently petitioner avoided to come Nabadwip in some pretext or other and suddenly she was shocked to receive the summon of the matrimonial suit. She submitted that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit. By way of additional written statement she has also denied all allegations levelled against her in paragraph 6 (i) and 6 (ii) of the plaint. 6. On the basis of the pleading Trial Court framed 6 issues out of which issue No. 3 relates to allegation regarding treating the petitioner with cruelty and issue No. 4 relates to the question of desertion by the respondent. 6. On the basis of the pleading Trial Court framed 6 issues out of which issue No. 3 relates to allegation regarding treating the petitioner with cruelty and issue No. 4 relates to the question of desertion by the respondent. Petitioner/husband only deposed in the suit as PW1 and he has filed and proved G.D. slip dated 04.09.2010, written complaint dated 04.09.2010, G.D. No. 118 dated 02.11.2009, G.D. dated 28.12.2009, written complaint dated 28.12.2009, which are marked as Exhibit 1 to 4 and petitioner also filed an original letter along with envelope written by respondent addressed to the petitioner which is dated 17.06.2009 and marked as Exhibit 5. On the contrary respondent /wife deposed as DW1 and no document was filed on her behalf. 7. Learned Trial Court after considering the pleading and the evidence adduced by both the parties, came to the finding that the allegation that the respondent was reluctant to do household work or she left for her job at 9 a.m. and used to return home at 8 p.m. does not amount to cruelty as cruelty is to be grave and weighty to make the petitioner impossible to live together without harming himself and also because petitioner opted to marry respondent with full knowledge that she will work during the office hour. Moreover, asking separate accommodation or non-attendance in the household work are not proved as no other witness corroborated said allegations. Not only that demand for separate accommodation or reluctance to do household works cannot come under the definition of 'cruelty' and in this context he relied upon a case Bhavna Sharma (Smt.) v. Devendra Kumar Sharma, reported in aIR 2007 Raj 157 . 8. Learned Trial Court further held that if respondent earlier approached before District Legal Service authority (DLSa), it also does not amount to 'cruelty'. Moreover petitioner did not bring on record any witness to prove that any undue pressure was created on him to take his wife in a separate accommodation. Petitioner did not examine his parents or any other family member to prove that petitioner or his family members suffered any mental cruelty due to filing application before DLSa by the respondent wife . Petitioner did not examine his parents or any other family member to prove that petitioner or his family members suffered any mental cruelty due to filing application before DLSa by the respondent wife . as regards alleged occurrence in June 2012 and September 2013, trial court held that in the additional written statement, respondent denied such allegation and no witness or family member of petitioner was examined to prove the said occurrence, though family members of the petitioner resided in a joint family and they are the best witness whom the petitioner has withheld. accordingly learned Trial Court observed, if the respondent visited the matrimonial home in September, 2013 and June 2012, it does not constitute 'cruelty' unless misbehaviour is proved by corroboration. 9. To answer the issue as to whether respondent deserted the petitioner without any excuse, Trial Court held that desertion on the part of the respondent/wife was not proved and on the contrary it appears that wife made several attempts to live together and respondent took defence that she left the matrimonial home on 23.05.2009 after taking consent and permission from the petitioner to see her ailing mother. Moreover dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion has been filed without waiting minimum mandatory period of two years time after separation. Furthermore, petitioner admitted in his cross-examination that he never went to the respondent after 23.05.2009 to bring her back. accordingly petitioner has miserably failed to prove that respondent has wilfully deserted the petitioner without any lawful excuse. 10. However relying upon the letter written by the respondent on 17.06.2009 and which is marked as Exhibit 6, Trial Court observed that respondent has admitted the contents of the letter and also her signature in cross-examination. In the said letter respondent admitted that she misbehaved with the petitioner day after day and disrespected him and she further admitted in that letter that she inflicted injury to the petitioner emotionally and she repented and she intended to rejoin with the petitioner. She further admitted through Exhibit 6 that she suspected the petitioner. Learned Trial Court further held that though an admission is not conclusive proof but rebuttable and is to be rebutted thorough evidence. accordingly the allegation levelled by petitioner that respondent misbehaved/disrespected the petitioner for which he suffered mental pain, has been proved by way of admission. She further admitted through Exhibit 6 that she suspected the petitioner. Learned Trial Court further held that though an admission is not conclusive proof but rebuttable and is to be rebutted thorough evidence. accordingly the allegation levelled by petitioner that respondent misbehaved/disrespected the petitioner for which he suffered mental pain, has been proved by way of admission. Respondent also admitted that petitioner took required care to make her happy during the trip to Goa after marriage. accordingly Trial Court concluded that such act of disrespect/misbehaviour whether intentional or unintentional is immaterial but fact remains that such admitted act amounts to mental cruelty and mental pain. However, learned Trial Court found that there are wrong from both sides and both sides are at fault and for which instead of granting decree of divorce, he moulded relief to judicial separation and also granted permanent alimony under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage act. 11. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 22.04.2016 wife/respondent/appellant preferred this appeal on the ground that learned court below erred in law holding that husband/petitioner could prove the allegation of cruelty on the ground that respondent admitted in the letter which is marked as Exhibit 6, that she misbehaved with the petitioner and she had shown disrespect and/or suspected the petitioner without considering that the admission made in the letter is no admission in the eye of law. Learned Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration the contents and purport of the letter in its entirety. Learned court below failed to consider in granting the decree of judicial separation in favour of petitioner husband without considering that the petitioner did not comply with the learned court's order in paying maintenance and litigation cost to the respondent wife and such non payment amounts to wrong done by the petitioner, which disentitles the petitioner from getting any relief. Learned Trial Court did not consider that the petitioner/husband at no point of time took any endeavour to resume the matrimonial tie. Learned Trial Court did not consider that the petitioner/husband at no point of time took any endeavour to resume the matrimonial tie. The letter dated 17th June, 2009, which is marked as Exhibit 6 is written only after 25 days of separation by the respondent, praying for forgiveness with a hope that the petitioner/husband will resume the matrimonial tie and learned Trial Court erred in law in holding on the basis of said letter that the admitted act of respondent amounts to cruelty and mental pain towards the petitioner. Practically petitioner has no cause of action to file the case. 12. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. The letter dated 17th June, 2009 which is marked as Exhibit 6 has got no connection with the alleged occurrence which allegedly took place in June 2012 or September, 2013 and learned Trial Court rightly held that said alleged occurrence has not been proved in the absence of corroboration by the family members, who could have been the best witness to support the alleged occurrence relating to cruelty. We also find nothing to interfere with the observation made by the Trial Court in coming to a finding that as because it was an arranged marriage and petitioner opted to marry respondent with the knowledge that she is a working lady then the allegation that respondent was reluctant to do household work and remained in office from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. must not amount to cruelty. Even going to parents' house off and on by the respondent also does not amount to cruelty. There is nothing to interfere with the observation made by the Trial Court that asking for separate accommodation in order to reside separately or to make an approach before DLSa for a practical solution in order to restore their matrimonial tie, can by no stretch of imitation stand as a ground for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. 13. However, from paragraph 6 of the plaint it appears that petitioner has alleged that respondent is hot tempered and used to misbehave with the petitioner and his parents and she used to show disrespect to her in-laws in every possible way she could do. 13. However, from paragraph 6 of the plaint it appears that petitioner has alleged that respondent is hot tempered and used to misbehave with the petitioner and his parents and she used to show disrespect to her in-laws in every possible way she could do. In the said paragraph it is further alleged that the respondent is suspicious and that the marriage between the parties did not work out as respondent inflicted immense cruelty on the petitioner/husband and made his life horrible. From the lower court record it appears that the letter which is marked as Exhibit 6, the respondent admitted by writing 'ami tomar sathe onek durbabohar korechi', (I misbehaved with you in various ways) 'tomake aghat dia katha bolechi' (I spoke with you in such a way that you were hurt) 'ami tomar sathe diner por din kharap babohar korechi, osomman korechi'(as such I misbehaved with you for day after day and insulted you). 'Tomar moner vitorta ami khoto bikhoto kore diachi', (I badly hurt your sentiment and emotions) 'ami nijer ojante diner por din amader somporko ta kharap kore diachi', (Gradually I spoiled our relationship) 'amar kharp babohare diner por din amar kach theke nijeke dure soria felecho'( as a result of my misbehaviour you took yourself to a long distance from me, day by day). 'amader ai durotto mene nite na pere ami bokar moto tomake sondeho kore felechi'(I could not accept this and hence I suspected you like a fool). 'ajke ami amar vul sompurno rupe bujhte perechi' (Today I have come to understand my fault completely). 'age Jodi partam tahole ami tomake ato kosto ditam na ba nijeo ato kosto petam na' (if I could understand it before, then I would not give you so much pain and I too would not be so unhappy). 14. according to section 58 of the Evidence act no fact requires to be proved in any suit, which parties to the suit agreed on admission at the time of hearing. accordingly in the present case learned Trial Court committed no mistake in relying upon such admission under petitioner's own hand writing and to reach a conclusion that respondent admittedly misbehaved and disrespected the petitioner for which he suffered mental pain, which amounts to cruelty and also treated petitioner with cruelty in suspecting petitioner without having any cogent reason. accordingly in the present case learned Trial Court committed no mistake in relying upon such admission under petitioner's own hand writing and to reach a conclusion that respondent admittedly misbehaved and disrespected the petitioner for which he suffered mental pain, which amounts to cruelty and also treated petitioner with cruelty in suspecting petitioner without having any cogent reason. Learned Trial Court also committed no mistake in granting decree of judicial separation instead of decree of divorce because the decree of judicial separation passed in certain cases instead of passing decree of divorce under section 13-a of the Hindu Marriage act with the hope of adjustment and reconciliation. Here in the present case admittedly the marriage continued only for about 10 months and the evidence as adduced by the parties go to show that the respondent/wife has made several attempts for restoration of matrimonial tie, when she repented for her previous behaviour and for which learned Trial Court was justified in keeping open the chance of reconciliation instead of dissolving marriage by applying section 13-a of the Hindu Marriage act and awarding permanent alimony to the wife/respondent. In this context it is to be mentioned that the Trial Court though in the last paragraph of his judgment observed that respondent wife is entitled for permanent alimony till she lives separately under section 25 of Hindu Marriage act but inadvertently in the operative part of the judgment said maintenance is written as 'pendente lite alimony' instead of 'permanent alimony'. Only said inadvertent mistake in ordering portion is corrected by this judgment. 15. Fa 95 of 2017 is thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs . Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Let the copy of the order be send to the Trial Court through learned Registrar (L&OM). I agree.