The court held that cruelty is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act and that it must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The court also held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 1 ) IN the present appeal arising out of Matrimonial Suit Nos. 635 of 1994/18 of 1995 before the learned additional District Judge, 24-Parganas (S), the appellant is the wife, Arunima bhattacharjee and the respondent is shamaprasad Bhattacharjee. That Mat. Suit no. 18 of 1995 was decided and disposed of by Sri P. Biswas, Additional District Judge, alipore, 24-Parganas (S) on 15-9-97 whereby the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit on contest in favour of the plaintiff-husband and the marriage between the parties which was solemnized on December 3, 1979 was ordered to be dissolved and the husband got a decree for divorce against the wife. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the learned additional District Judge, Alipore, the wife arunima has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional District Judge in the said Matrimonial Suit framed as many as six issues and recorded his findings thereto in coming to the decision he did. The learned Judge took up all the issues together for the sake of convenience of discussion and decided the case. It appears that the entire focus of the learned Additional District judge was on a decision on the principal point involved in the case as to whether the wife, Arunima Bhattacharjee had treated the husband, Shamaprasad with cruelty, both physically and mentally. Having considered the evidence on record, both oral and documentary the learned Judge decided the issue in favour of the husband. According to the learned Additional District Judge series of so-called gross misdemeanour and misconduct resulting in physical as well as mental torture upon the husband by wife, which according to the learned Judge amounted to "cruelty", had entitled the husband to get a decree of divorce on that ground alone. The learned Additional District Judge has also found that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down and that there was no point in maintaining the marital relation between the parties any longer and that too had justified the decree of divorce.

( 3 ) THE parties went into wedlock way back in December, 1979 according to Hindu rites and Customs. They started living together as husband and wife in husband's house at Rainagar Harisava, P. O. Bansdroni, Dist. South 24-Parganas. However, the marital relation ran into rough weather soon after the marriage and according to the husband (respondent) the wife (appellant) was found to be very much moody, haughty and whimsical. The husband had alleged that the wife was quarrelsome, abusive towards her mother-in-law, that the husband wanted her to leave her job as a school teacher and look after the mother-in-law and their child, a daughter which was born on 24-1 -82 but the wife did not comply thereby deliberately neglecting the child and the family. It was the husband's further allegation that he was physically assaulted with fist and blows by the wife and was also once mercilessly beaten up by some anti-social elements hired by the wife. Because of physical and mental torture, the husband alleged that he had to leave his own house leaving the wife and the child over there and started living in a rented house alone, that the wife also visited the office of the husband, made. abuses to him over there in presence of his colleagues causing him mental pain and suffering, that the wife also pressurised the husband to part with his house in favour of the wife to get money, that in 1989, having treated with cruelty by the wife the husband brought a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 43 of 1989 at the Alipore Court on the ground of cruelty but that was dismissed, that thereafter there was a written agreement dated 11-11 -90 between the parties whereby the wife promised to have a peaceful marital life with the husband but that agreement was not acted upon. According to the husband as a result of the mental and physical cruelty that were perpetrated on him,