JUDGMENT :

SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.

1. The above appeal arises out of the Judgement and Order dated 5th of February, 2020 passed by the Learned Family Court, Port Blair in Matrimonial Suit No. 001 of 2014 (for short the said MAT Suit). The appellant herein, being the husband of the respondent, being the wife herein, had filed the said MAT Suit under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the 1955 Act), alleging cruelty by the respondent/wife committed against the appellant/husband.

2. Before the Learned Trial Court both the parties adduced evidence. The Learned Trial Court, upon examining the pleadings and the evidence recorded, came to the finding that the allegations of cruelty levelled by the appellant against the respondent could not be substantiated by any corroborative evidence. The Learned Trial Court noticed that the desire expressed by of the respondent/wife to stay with her parents at a moment in their lives when she was pregnant, does not amount to cruelty, since such is a normal facet of married life. The only evidence connected to expression of cruelty by the respondent/wife is her statement recorded before the Learned Trial Court in cross-examination to the effect that the appellant is not mentally fit.

3. The Learned Trial Court, to the contrary, noticed that the conduct of the appellant/husband was far from contributing to a healthy married life. The appellant/husband could not disclaim knowledge of the fact relating to the respondent’s pregnancy since the appellant and the respondent travelled to Port Blair from Havelock at a time with the respondent was six months pregnant. The Learned Trial Court found no convincing ground made out on which a case of cruelty, as alleged by the appellant, could be founded.

4. Mr. Jaypal, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/husband, would argue that on several occasions after marriage the appellant/husband was treated with cruelty by the respondent/wife. It has been pointed out by Learned Counsel for the appellant that the sole ground on which this appeal rests is whether or not the respondent/wife has treated the appellant/husband with cruelty which has the effect of nullifying the marital ties.

5. Great emphasis has been placed by Mr. Jaypal on the cross-examination of the respondent/wife to the effect that the petitioner/appellant/husband was not mentally fit. It is submitted that this piece of evidence is enough to prove that the image of the appellant/husband has been tarnished in public. Learned Counsel for the appellant asserts that this piece of evidence submitted by the respondent/wife herself in the cross-examination does not require any corroborative evidence and, is a sure indicator of the disposition of the respondent/wife qua her husband making continuance of further marital ties worthless. Furthermore, from this piece of evidence any Court ought to have arrived at the conclusion that the pleadings of the appellant/husband in the said MAT Suit, of cruelty, do not require any corroborative evidence.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant relies on the legal authority of V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 at Paragraph 20 thereof, in support of the proposition that allegation of mental unfitness publicly made by one spouse against another amounts to mental cruelty of such a nature which would justify the refusal of the aggrieved spouse to continue the matrimonial relationship.

7. Further, relying on the decision in Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2004, Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, Learned Counsel for the appellant asserts that the allegations of mental unfitness brought by the respondent/wife is so grave and weighty that it cannot be simply set aside as an ordinary wear and tear of married life.

8. Per contra, Mr. Chakraborty, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/wife, has submitted that the appellant/husband could not establish from the materials on record that he had been treated with cruelty. It is submitted that, to the contrary, there is