Mere suspicion of infidelity, solitary instances of abuse, threats of suicide, or reporting to the police, and communication of allegations to children do not constitute cruelty sufficient to grant a divorce.

( 1 ) THE petitioner husband is the appellant. He filed Matrimonial Suit No. 685 of 1987 at Alipore for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was married to the respondent on the 10th of May, 1968 according to Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner is an engineer and obtained HMC in Mechanical engineering from the U. K. The parties did not dispute that for some time, after the marriage, the relationship between the two continued to be good. Out of the wedlock, two female children were born to the parties. The petitioner had a business and it continued smoothly till November, 1985, when the workshop of the petitioner came to be under lock-out. The petitioner averred that he had a very good income from the business and the paternal properties and the respondent could live a luxurious life. But since November, 1985, as stated by the petitioner, there was a financial stringency. It was alleged that since then, the respondent started misbehaving towards the petitioner by abusing and in other ways. The petitioner also made out a case that the respondent suspected that the petitioner had illicit relation with other women. The petitioner felt hurt because the respondent abused him in the presence of the children. For sometime past, according to the petitioner, the respondent along with her children, were living separately from the petitioner. It was summed up that the matrimonial ties in between the petitioner and the respondent had broken. On these allegations, the petitioner filed the suit for divorce.

( 2 ) THE respondent admitted the marriage. It was also admitted that the respondent could lead a comfortable and peaceful life with her husband and her two minor children for some time. All other allegations are denied. It was denied that the respondent abused the petitioner in the presence of the daughters. The respondent also asserted that she along with her husband (the petitioner) and the two minor children were very much living together in their own residential house of Bondel Road. The respondent refuted the alleged grounds for divorce.

( 3 ) DURING trial, the petitioner examined himself. Some documents were also marked exhibits on his side. On behalf of the respondent, herself and her sister were examined.

( 4 ) UPON a consideration of the materials on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The ground of cruelty was not accepted by the trial court. Against the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.

( 5 ) MR. Bhattacharya has appeared for the appellant. Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee has appeared for the respondent.

( 6 ) BEFORE coming to the grounds of cruelty, we must have in view the circumstances prevailing. The parties admittedly are living in the same house, under the same roof, though in separate rooms. It is sought to be made out by Mr. Bhattacharya that the parties are separate in mess also. But that case has not been made out at the time of trial. The petitioner, as PW-l, has not deposed that the parties are separate in mess. On the side of the respondent, DW-2, in her chief, has asserted that the parties are joint in mess till date. That assertion, however, has lost its significance in view of the fact that during cross examination, this witness has admitted that she did not know if the parties became separate in mess in the same house. However, it is also not asserted that the parties are separate in mess. Therefore, one cannot proceed on the footing that the parties are separate in mess, as the case is not made out. This aspect has got bearing upon the question whether their marriage ties have broken down completely. We get that the parties are living under the same roof and we do not get that they are separate in mess. The other circumstance, we are to note is that even according to the petitioner, the respondent looks after the children. Then the respondent herself has also admitted that her daughte