Point of Law : As envisaged in section 13(i) (a) of the Act of 1955, marriage under this Act can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife on the ground that “the other party has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty”. The term “cruelty” takes within its sweep any act which may cause physical, mental or other violation and should be something more than ordinary wear and tear of a marriage

JUDGMENT :

SUVRA GHOSH, J.

1. This is a tragic story of a woman who is eager to fulfil her dreams of a happy and peaceful married life despite denial and refusal by her husband.

2. The respondent is the wife of the appellant by virtue of marriage solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs on 10-08-2009. Disputes and differences cropped up between the parties which led the appellant/ husband to file a suit praying for decree of divorce under section 13(i) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Durgapur. The contention of the appellant/husband in the said petition was that the respondent misbehaved with the appellant and his family members and also developed extra marital relationship with many persons. She turned a deaf ear to the request of her husband to lead a moral life and cooperate with him in maintaining cordial relation. It was further alleged that the respondent insisted that the appellant should stay separately from his family and refused to lead a conjugal life with the appellant, besides torturing him physically and mentally. The respondent left the appellant’s house voluntarily in January, 2011 and was residing in her parental home since then. Several efforts of the appellant to bring her back failed and there was no scope for reconciliation between the parties which compelled the appellant to file suit for divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion.

3. The respondent/wife contested the suit by filing written statement wherein she denied the contention of the appellant and stated that the appellant married her after obtaining a decree of divorce against his first wife Rina Bag alias Manna on 02-02-2009. She also averred that the appellant was a primary school teacher under the State Government, posted at Harishpur near Purbasthali in district Burdwan which was far away from his residence at Durgapur which he visited every weekend. The appellant and his family members were unhappy with the gold ornaments, furniture, utensils and cash of Rs. 1, 60,000/- given by the widowed mother of the respondent during their marriage and demanded further cash and other valuables from her. The inability of the respondent’s mother to meet the said demand resulted in subjecting the respondent to physical and mental cruelty by the appellant and his family. The appellant also insisted on staying in the respondent’s parental home as “Ghar Jamai”. The respondent further stated that the appellant was incapable of leading conjugal life whereas she had no medical problem at all. The respondent was taken to her parental home by the appellant on 03-06-2010 and left there, never to be allowed in her matrimonial home again. The respondent has been receiving interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the appellant by virtue of an order granted by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Second Court, Durgapur in Miscellaneous Case No. 186 of 2011. The respondent is ready and willing to reconcile with the appellant and lead a peaceful marital life with him. She prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Upon taking evidence of the parties and considering the entire material on record, the learned trial court, by judgment impugned, dismissed the suit on contest.

5. Being aggrieved by such dismissal, the appellant has come up before this court in appeal, praying for a decree of divorce in his favour.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not intend to press the grounds of adultery and desertion and shall confine his argument to the ground of cruelty.

7. At the outset, it has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that though the respondent filed a proceeding praying for maintenance, she did not approach the court for restitution of conjugal rights which indicates that she has no intention of resuming marital life. Referring to the averment of the respondent in her written statement as well as her evidence before the learned trial court, learned co