The court's discretion in granting a divorce on the ground of cruelty is not absolute and must be exercised judicially. The court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including the conduct of both spouses, the impact of the conduct on the other spouse, and the prospects for reconciliation.

S.B. Sinha, J.

This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 9th February, 1984 passed by Sri M. R. Mullick, District Judge, Howrah whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge allowed the suit for divorce filed by the respondent herein.

2. Having regard to the nature of the controversy it is not necessary to state the fact in great detail. Suffice it to point out that the parties were married according to Hindu Rites and had started living together at village Pantihal. The respondent herein brought out the aforementioned suit for divorce, inter. alia, on the ground that the appellant herein was leading an adulterous life with one Dilip Das and again with one Manick Khara. By an amendment the ground of cruelty had also been taken. The appellant herein in her written statement as also additional written statement denied and disputed the aforementioned allegations. The learned Judge having regard to the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues :-

1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

2. Is the respondent guilty of adultery?

3. Is the petitioner entitled to get a decree of divorce as parayed for?

4. To what other relief or reliefs, if any, is the petitioner entitled?

5. Is the suitbad for non-joinder of parties?

6. Is the respondent No.1 guilty of cruelty?

3. The only issue pressed before the learned trial Judge was whether the suit should have been decreed on the ground of cruelty of the appellant or not?

4. The learned trial Judge with regard to the Issue No.2 held that the respondent had failed to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the appellant herein was engaged in sexual interecourse with Dilip Das, Manick Khara or Shibsankar Majhi. With regard to Issue No.6, as indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner-respondent brought the said ground by way of amendment of plaint, the material allegations in relation whereto are follows:-

"The respondent No.1 misbehaved with the petitioner since the petitioner met her for close acquaintance on the Fulsajjya Day i.e. on 25th Jaistha, 1382 B.S, but instead of matrimonial connections expected from a wife and exchange of mutual cordial relations and affections as expected from a newly married couple of a middle class Bengali family, the respondent disclosed her mind about her unhappiness and dissatisfaction for her forced marriage without her consent inasmuch as the marriage was alleged to have taken place, without her consent, on the insistance of her brother-in-law (Bhagnipati) named Sachin Mal and, thus, avoided to establish the matrimonial connections and asked the petitioner not to touch her body and to expect any affectionate treatment by sexual connections in any manner. Such treatment of the respondent-wife shocked the petitioner and he was confused as to what he was to do under such cricumstances as his life would be barren with mental agonies and sufferings for the refusal of the respondent No.1, to lead a happy conjugal life.

Shortly thereafter on the 9th day after marriage the respondent No.1 was taken to her father's house and the petitioner was advised to visit the father-in-law's place on the day. The petitioner tried to have sexual intercourse during the period of her stay for 7 days after Fulsajjya but the petitioner was not happy on account of cold attitude of the respondent-wife who was found frigid and threatened to teach the petitioner a lesson in due course. As a matter of fact when the petitioner visited his father-in-law's house on the 10th day after marriage in the morning he had a sad experience of very cold reception and the respondent No.1 did not even care to meet throughout the day and he was insulted with abusive language by the members of her father's family including her father and the petitioner had to return back with mental agonies. Practically no connection was kept and respondent even did not care to send any information for a long period of two months when on or about two months the respondent with her father ca