A wife's refusal to return to the matrimonial home without any just reason, lodging false complaints against the husband, and depriving him of her company constitutes mental cruelty, entitling the husband to a divorce.

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. :- This first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and is directed against the judgement and decree dated 31st August, 1999 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in Matrimonial Petition No. 150 of 1995 thereby allowing an application for grant of divorce.

2. The respondent herein filed in the Family Court a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act thereby praying for divorce and the case made out by the respondent may be summed up thus :

(a) The respondent was working as an employee of South Eastern Railway and pursuant to the negotiation between the parents of the parties, they were married on 27th February, 1989 according to the Hindu rites and thereafter they started residing as husband and wife at premises No. 120, Adyanath Saha Road, P. S. Lake Town.

(b) To the surprise of all, it was found that even on the very first day after the marriage, the behaviour of the appellant was not of the kind one expects from a new bride. She was insolent and discourteous and ill-behaved with all and created embarrassing situations by terrorising the members of the family of the in-laws.

(c) The matrimonial home comprised of a self-contained unit of a building belonging to the father of the respondent and ever since the appellant came to her matrimonial home, her parents, cousin-brothers, uncles and most of the relatives used to visit her and they used to quarrel and abuse the respondent and his mother.

(d) Ultimately, the appellant while she was in her family way voluntarily left and abandoned the matrimonial home on 23rd October, 1991 and was admitted in a Nursing Home at Calcutta and after the birth of the child, the respondent requested the appellant to return to the matrimonial home; but she refused and started causing harassment to the respondent by visiting his Office and casting aspersions against him, as a result, the superior officers of the respondent and his colleagues entertained a very bad impression about the respondent.

(e) The respondent repeatedly visited the appellant at her fathers house and requested her to return with the minor daughter and the uncle of the respondent, the maternal uncle and his cousin brothers had gone to the residence of the appellant on innumerable occasions and requested her to come back with the child but she turned down their request.

(f) Although, the appellant refused to come, strangely enough, she initiated a Matrimonial Suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 103 of 1993 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta for restitution of conjugal right and thereafter moved an application under Clause 13 of the Letters Patent, 1885 and Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Extra Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court for transferring the said suit to the High Court. The said suit was transferred to the High Court but ultimately, the suit was dismissed after recording an order that the husband was willing to take back the wife.

(g) Thereafter, in the last week of October, 1993 the appellant went to the residence of the respondent along with her close relations and created a scene and thereafter collected all her clothes, winter garments etc. which she left in the matrimonial home long back. Even thereafter, the respondent requested her to return but the respondent was harassed and driven out. Despite such a situation, the respondent had signed the admission form as the father and guardian of the daughter for the admission of the School on the request of the appellant.

(h) The appellant was a very solvent person. She had independent source of income as a Physical Instructor at Sadhana Yoga Bayam Samity, Garpar, Sukhia Street, Calcutta. She also earned money as private Messeur-cum-physiotherphist. Besides, she had inherited a Ration Shop and a whole sale stationary shop from her deceased father and that is the cause of her rude behaviour. The aforesaid acts of the appellant amounted to cruelty. Hen