JUDGMENT : M.B.Snehalatha, J. Appellant/wife challenges the judgment and decree of the Family Court, which declined the relief of divorce sought by her under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . 2. Parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original Petition. 3. The petitioner/wife filed the petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty contending as follows: Parties are Hindus; their marriage was solemnized on 23.5.2010 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, 90 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.5 lakhs were given as patrimony. Another sum of Rs.2 lakhs was given at the time of 'adukkalakanal' ceremony. A boy child was born in the said wedlock. Respondent is a drunkard. Respondent doubted the chastity of the petitioner and physically and mentally tortured her raising wild allegations against her. Due to the unbearable torture of the respondent, she even made an attempt to commit suicide along with the child. Respondent misappropriated the entire gold ornaments of the petitioner and Rs.5 lakhs given as patrimony. After misappropriating the gold and cash, respondent again demanded an additional sum of Rs.5 lakhs and 50 sovereigns of gold as dowry and when the petitioner expressed the inability of her parents to give any additional amount and gold, respondent again ill-treated her physically and mentally. Due to the threat and ill treatment meted out, the petitioner had to leave the matrimonial home along with her child and she is now living at the mercy of her parents. 4. Respondent/husband filed counter denying the allegation of cruelty levelled against him and also denied the allegations regarding the misappropriation of gold and cash. It was also contended that most of the ornaments worn by the petitioner on the wedding day were not gold and the same were rented ornaments from a beautician. There was no demand for any dowry as alleged. Respondent is employed in Saudi Arabia for the past 15 years. The allegations regarding cruelty are false and incorrect and respondent has never harassed her physically and mentally. The attitude of the petitioner towards the respondent and his family was very cruel and inhumane and she didn’t look after the aged and ailing parents of the respondent. Petitioner used to spend her entire time in social media platforms and she was not interested in looking after the affairs of the family. The attitude of the petitioner towards the respondent and his family was very cruel and inhumane and she didn’t look after the aged and ailing parents of the respondent. Petitioner used to spend her entire time in social media platforms and she was not interested in looking after the affairs of the family. As insisted by the petitioner, the parents of the respondents had to execute a settlement deed on 15.9.2010 bearing No.3055/2010 of SRO Haripad pertaining to the property having an extent of 12.14 Ares in the joint name of the petitioner and respondent. Petitioner had given 57 sovereigns of her gold ornaments to her father for purchasing a property. Respondent has never committed any acts of cruelty to the petitioner as alleged. Petitioner left the matrimonial home on her own accord after misappropriating the entire money of the respondent and 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Petitioner manhandled the mother of the respondent. Petitioner availed a loan of Rs.7 lakhs from a private finance and the said loan was repaid by her by using the funds of the respondent. The incidents of cruelty narrated in the petition are false and fabricated for the purpose of the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the judgment and decree of the Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce need any interference by this Court. 6. Heard both sides. 7. Parties are Hindus. Admittedly the marriage was solemnized in the year 2010 and they were blessed with a boy child in the said wedlock. 8. The specific case of the petitioner/wife is that her husband doubted her chastity and ill treated her both physically and mentally and that he often physically assaulted her. It is also her case that after misappropriating the gold and cash given to her as patrimony, respondent again demanded more gold and cash from her house and thus tortured her, which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. 9. In the counter statement, the respondent has raised a contention that petitioner used to spend her entire time in social media platforms and she is not interested in looking after the affairs of the family including his aged parents. He has also raised a contention that petitioner is abstaining from matrimonial life due to mysterious reasons. 10. Petitioner's specific case is that respondent doubted her chastity and assaulted her. He has also raised a contention that petitioner is abstaining from matrimonial life due to mysterious reasons. 10. Petitioner's specific case is that respondent doubted her chastity and assaulted her. Petitioner while examined as PW1 has narrated the physical assault meted out by her at the hands of the respondent. Merely for the reason that while stating the dates on which she was physically assaulted, there occurred some discrepancy, it is not a ground to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that she was physically assaulted by the respondent. Likewise, solely for the reason that the wife did not lodge any police complaint when she was assaulted by the husband, one cannot disbelieve her version that she was physically assaulted. There is no reason for this Court to discard the version of the petitioner that, doubting her chastity, respondent manhandled her and physically and mentally tortured her. In cases of matrimonial cruelty, it is not uncommon for a wife to delay in lodging a formal complaint due to social stigma, emotional trauma, fear of retaliation or hope for reconciliation. 11. The institution of marriage thrives on mutual respect, trust and understanding. Doubting the chastity of the wife without any reasonable basis strikes at the root of the said relationship. 12. A woman’s chastity in character is deeply connected to her honour and reputation in society. The baseless allegations against the chastity of the wife made by the husband affects her emotional well being. When a husband casts uncorroborated allegations on the character of the wife, accusing her of infidelity or unchastity, it deeply wounds her dignity and causes intolerable mental trauma. Living in such a toxic environment can be unbearable and harmful to the mental health of the wife making it unjust to compel her to continue the marriage. Under the Hindu Marriage Act such behavior is rightly recognized as mental cruelty, giving the wife a valid ground for divorce. It is essential to uphold the dignity and rights of individuals within marriage and ensure justice where such trust is maliciously broken. 13. In Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila.P ( 2025 (2)KHC 33 ) this Court held as follows: “15. A behaviour that may be seen as trivial in one marriage might be deeply hurtful in another. Therefore, cruelty is to be assessed on a case - by - case basis. 13. In Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila.P ( 2025 (2)KHC 33 ) this Court held as follows: “15. A behaviour that may be seen as trivial in one marriage might be deeply hurtful in another. Therefore, cruelty is to be assessed on a case - by - case basis. What constitutes cruelty in a matrimonial relationship depends on the unique circumstances, behaviour and experience of the parties involved. Courts do not rely on a rigid definition of cruelty but has to evaluate each case based on its facts. Courts have to analyse whether the conduct makes out unreasonable for the one spouse to live with the other.” 14. Vinitha Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006(3)SCC 778), the Ho’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “The word 'cruelty' has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct and one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. There may be cases where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injuries effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.” 15. In Nirmal Singh Panesar (Dr.) v. Paramjit Kaur Panesar @ Ajinder Kaur Panesar (2023 KHC 6905), the Apex Court held that:- “The word cruelty has to be construed and interpreted considering the type of life parties are accustomed to; or their economic and social conditions and their culture and human values to which they attach importance.” 16. The evidence on record establish that the parties are incompatible partners and that the marriage between them is no longer viable. It is a well settled principle that what constitutes cruelty in a matrimonial relationship depends on the specific circumstances, behavior and experience of the parties involved and the courts cannot rely on a rigid definition, but has to evaluate each case based on its facts. A more flexible and comprehensive approach is needed when evaluating a case, in which a wife seeks divorce on the ground of cruelty. 17. In Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni [ AIR 2023 SC 4186 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “(7). A more flexible and comprehensive approach is needed when evaluating a case, in which a wife seeks divorce on the ground of cruelty. 17. In Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni [ AIR 2023 SC 4186 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “(7). Historically, the law of divorce was predominantly built on a conservative canvas based on the fault theory. Preservation of marital sanctity from a societal perspective was considered a prevailing factor. With the adoption of a libertarian attitude, the grounds for separation or dissolution of marriage have been construed with latitudinarianism.” 18. The Apex Court also observed as follows: “…... element of subjectivity has to be applied albeit, what constitutes cruelty is objective. Therefore, what is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce.” (emphasis supplied by us) 19. Petitioner has succeeded in establishing that the respondent/ husband mentally and physically tortured her, doubting her chastity; and that the marriage between the spouses is no longer viable, their relationship having essentially ended and irretrievably broken. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree stands set aside and divorce is granted under Section Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . The marriage between the appellant and the respondent, solemnized on 23.5.2010 is hereby declared as dissolved, with effect from the date of this judgment. Parties shall suffer their respective cost.