JUDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband. Also heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent-wife, who had been appointed as such by this Court on 23/01/2025. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 01/12/2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of marriage by granting a Decree of Divorce. 3. This appeal had been filed on 20/05/2022 and despite notices having been issued to and received by the respondent-wife, no one has appeared for the respondent-wife. 4. The orders passed by this Court since 25/04/2022 indicates that the respondent-wife has refused to accept the service of notice of this case and that the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Kamrup (Metro) had also been directed to inform the respondent to appear in the Court. However, the Para-Legal Volunteer appointed by the District Legal Service Authority, who had gone to the address of the respondent-wife to serve notice, has stated that the respondent had refused to accept notice. Due to the respondent refusing to accept the notices, this Court vide order dated 23/01/2025 appointed Shri S.K. Goswami, the learned counsel as Amicus Curiae, to assist this Court in deciding the appeal. 5. This Court had also directed Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned Amicus Curiae to communicate with the respondent-wife on her mobile number and obtain instructions as to whether she was interested in participating in the present appeal filed by the appellant-husband. The order dated 15/12/2025 passed by this Court, observed that the learned Amicus Curiae had submitted that as soon as he spoke to the respondent-wife, she stopped communicating with him. The learned Amicus Curiae had also sent a WhatsApp message to the respondent, informing the respondent that the personal appearance of the respondent had been called for by this Court. However, the respondent has failed to appear even after the WhatsApp message had been sent to her. We are thus of the view that the respondent is aware of the present proceeding and has deliberately failed to appear in this Court, for reasons best known to her. 6. However, the respondent has failed to appear even after the WhatsApp message had been sent to her. We are thus of the view that the respondent is aware of the present proceeding and has deliberately failed to appear in this Court, for reasons best known to her. 6. Now, coming to the issue raised by the appellant-husband, we find that the appellant’s application for being granted a Divorce Decree had been rejected by the learned Family Court, even in the absence of the respondent-wife, who did not participate in the proceedings before the learned Family Court. The reason given by the learned Family Court in dismissing the appellant’s application for grant of a Divorce Decree was on the ground that the appellant had given contradictory statements in his plaint and in his evidence and as such, a case of cruelty on the part of the respondent-wife had not been made out. Further, no case of desertion by the respondent-wife had been made out. The appellant’s application was accordingly dismissed ex-parte. 7. The facts of the case, as can be seen from the records is that the appellant and the respondent had married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 15/12/2010 and a daughter was born to them on 01/10/2013. Due to problems that cropped up during the marriage and due to the appellant having been transferred to a place outside Assam in relation to his work, the appellant left the matrimonial home, which is owned by the appellant’s mother, to join his place of posting. The respondent-wife however declined to join her husband. In the matrimonial home, the respondent-wife continued to live with the appellant’s mother and sister. The appellant’s father had expired on 02/07/2017. 8. The appellant’s counsel submits that the respondent-wife had stopped talking /communicating with the appellant since December, 2019 and there was no conjugal relationship since then. Though the respondent-wife is not willing to live with the appellant in his place of posting, the respondent is continuing to stay in the appellant’s matrimonial home with their daughter, without there being any semblance of a married life between the two parties. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan Vs. He submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan Vs. Kartik Balakrishnan , (2014) 15 SCC 21 , not allowing a spouse to have sexual intercourse for a long time without sufficient reason, itself amounts to inflicting mental cruelty to such spouse. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan (Supra) has referred to another of its decision in Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh , (2007) 4 SCC 511 , wherein it has enumerated illustrations of mental cruelty. Para 12 (101-iv) of Samar Ghosh (Supra) states as follows :- “(iv) Mental Cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.” 9. In the present case, what is very apparent to us is the fact that not only is the respondent-wife not communicating with the appellant, but the respondent has deliberately not appeared before the learned Family Court nor before this Court, to enable us to try to understand the reason for the disruption in the married life of the parties herein. The attempt by the learned Amicus Curiae to speak with the respondent has been met with a stony wall of silence and the respondent has not even attempted to explain to the Amicus Curiae the reason for her behavior vis-a-vis the appellant. 10. The evidence adduced by the appellant, his mother and sister before the learned Family Court is to the effect that the respondent-wife is not communicating with the appellant and there is no conjugal relationship between the two. Further, the respondent is causing intentional mental cruelty to the appellant. The respondent wife has not even tried to give any denial or reason against the evidence adduced by the appellant, his mother and sister. In the case of Smt. Naseem Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1993) SCC (Supp. 4) 46 , the Supreme Court has held that uncontroverted averments should be deemed to be admitted. 11. The respondent wife has not even tried to give any denial or reason against the evidence adduced by the appellant, his mother and sister. In the case of Smt. Naseem Bano Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1993) SCC (Supp. 4) 46 , the Supreme Court has held that uncontroverted averments should be deemed to be admitted. 11. When there is no denial of the averments and evidence of the appellant, which is to the effect that there has been no conjugal relationship between the parties for a long time, due to the denial of the same on the part of the respondent-wife since the year 2019, we are bound to accept the same as correct. Further, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidhya Viswanathan (Supra) , denial of sexual intercourse for a long time without sufficient reason amounts to mental cruelty. As mental cruelty is a ground for granting divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, we are of the view that the learned Family Court could not have rejected the application of the appellant for grant of a Divorce Decree. 12. In the case of Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit , (2006) 3 SCC 778 , the Supreme Court has held in para 31 and 32 as follows :- “31. It is settled by catena of decisions that mental cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of the injured appellant such apprehension as is contemplated in the Section. It is to be determined on whole facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, there must be such wilful treatment of the party which caused suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case. 32. The word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. 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. 32. The word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. 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 the injurious 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.” 13. In view of the reasons stated above, we find that the appellant has made out a case for grant of Decree for Divorce as a case of mental cruelty has been made out in terms of section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, we are conscious of the fact that the issue of maintenance monthly/permanent alimony may come in, for which there are provisions which may be taken recourse to by the respondent-wife, for herself and her daughter, if maintenance is not provided to them by the appellant, as per law. 13. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned judgement dated 01/12/2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in FC(C) Case No. 20/2021, is hereby set aside. The prayer for a Divorce Decree is accordingly granted in terms of section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 14. The decree be accordingly drawn up. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 16. Send back the TCR.