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, In Re: 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, In Re: 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 sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellant/husband denied to maintain the respondent/wife and their child by not providing the basic amenities necessary for a decent life. The respondent/wife had to move the competent Court to claim maintenance from the appellant/husband and then again seek enhancement of the maintenance amount.

[9] Mr. Chakraborty points out that except referring to the cross-examination of the respondent/wife on his mental unfitness, the appellant/husband has not been able to corroborate the factum of cruelty. All other allegations connected to the neglect and bad behaviour by the respondent/wife, even assuming but not admitting that such are true, are of a nature which can be associated with the daily wear and tear of married life.

[10] Learned Counsel for the respondent/wife submits that, to the contrary, the respondent/wife has stated in her evidence that she is still interested to lead a conjugal life with the appellant both for the sake of their marital ties and the future of their child. It is submitted that the appellant/husband himself has brought the marriage to a point of irretrievable breakdown and, therefore in law cannot claim divorce on the ground of breakdown of marital ties since, doing so, would amount to giving benefit to the appellant/husband of his own misdeeds. In support of his argument, Learned Counsel for the respondent/wife relies upon the authority of , In Re: Neelam Kumar vs. Dayarani, 2010 13 SCC 298.

[11] Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court cannot agree with the stand of the appellant/husband that the solitary uncorroborated evidence of the respondent/wife on the alleged mental unfitness of the husband is enough to clinch a finding of cruelty in his favour.

[12] This Court must notice that the statement of the respondent/wife to the effect that the appellant/husband is not mentally fit must be contextually construed in the light of the related evidence brought on record by the respondent/wife of the nature of ill-treatment suffered by her at his hands which is not symptomatic of a normal behaviour of one spouse qua the other. The statement by the respondent/wife cannot be read to be in the nature of a continuous and consistent vilificatory altitude of the respondent/wife against her husband which is so grave and weighty as to render all further marital ties impossible.

[13] This Court must therefore agree with the findings of the Learned Trial Court that neither from the pleadings placed by the appellant/husband nor from the evidence adduced by him, it can be established that sufficient corroborative material instances have been made out against the respondent/wife of having treated the appellant/husband with cruelty. It can be gathered from the pleadings of the appellant/husband and the evidence adduced by him and on his behalf that no specific instances and/or factual details of the alleged cruelty committed by the respondent/wife have been narrated. To the contrary, the allegation of the appellant/husband that the respondent/wife left him to stay with her parents stood rebutted by the contrary evidence that the appellant/husband left his wife standing on the jetty at Port Blair simply to return by the next boat to Havelock.

[14] On the other hand, this Court finds that the appellant/husband has not been able to deny and/or rebut the specific instances of ill-treatment stated to have been suffered by the respondent/wife at his hands. Therefore, this Court finds substance in the argument of Learned Counsel for the respondent/wife relying on the authority of 2010) 13 SCC 298 (supra), that the appellant/husband having by his own conduct brought the matrimonial relationship to a point of irretrievable breakdown cannot enjoy the benefit of his misdeeds.

[15] This Court is fortified in its views from the conduct of the respondent/wife that although the parties are living separately since 2011, yet the respondent/wife has expressed her desire in reuniting with the appellant/the husband.

[16] For the above reasons, the Judgement and Order passed by the Learned Trial Court as impugned in this appeal, suffers from no infirmity and stands accordingly affirmed.

[17] FAT 3 of 2020 stands thus dismissed.

[18] Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of this Judgement and Order placed on the official website of the Court.

[19] Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

[20] I agree.

(Rabindranath Samanta, J.