The main legal point established in the judgment is that desertion and refusal to return to the matrimonial home can lead to the granting of a decree of divorce under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Suvra Ghosh, J. - Marital tie between the appellant and respondent was severed at the instance of the respondent by judgment and decree of divorce granted by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 5th Court, Malda, on 19-12-2014 in Matrimonial Suit No. 232 of 2013.

2. The respondent/husband filed the Matrimonial Suit before the learned trial court praying for a decree of dissolution of marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent's contention, in his petition, was that the petitioner was his legally married wife by virtue of marriage solemnised on 21-06-2010. Though the parties started leading a conjugal life in the petitioner/husband's house, the respondent/wife went to her father's house off and on and preferred to remain there until she was repeatedly requested by the petitioner to return to her matrimonial home. The respondent left for her father's house on 19-09- 2010 to return only on 26-01-2011. She again left for her parental home with her cousin Proloy Bhakat with all her belongings on 02-02-2011, never to return to the petitioner again. Several attempts made by the petitioner to resume marital relationship with his wife fell on deaf ears despite the petitioner's eagerness to reunite with his wife. The petitioner finally informed the matter to the local police station and filed suit praying for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty.

3. The respondent/wife contested the suit by filing written statement denying the entire contention of the petitioner. She stated that cash Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs only), gold ornaments and other articles were given to the petitioner by her father during the marriage in spite of which she was subjected to physical and mental torture in her matrimonial home by the petitioner and his relatives who demanded a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs only) from her. They meted out physical and mental torture upon the respondent on a regular basis and finally drove her out of their house on 10-07-2013, compelling the respondent to return to her parental home. A salish was held at the instance of the respondent's father in his house on 25-07-2013 for an amicable settlement between the families but in vain. The respondent's father visited the petitioner on 30-07-2013 and was informed that the respondent would not be accepted in the petitioner's house for which the respondent was constrained to lodge complaint against the petitioner before the police.

4. Upon hearing the parties and considering evidence on record, the learned trial court, by the impugned judgment, granted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 in favour of the petitioner/husband.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant who was the respondent/wife before the learned trial court has preferred the present appeal.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/wife has argued that the respondent/husband has failed to prove that the appellant deserted him and treated him with cruelty. It was the respondent who drove out the appellant from her matrimonial home after subjecting her to cruelty for which a complaint was lodged by the appellant before the police which was registered as a criminal case wherein charge sheet has been submitted. The appellant resided with her husband till 10-07-2013 and the suit filed by her husband before the learned trial court on 31-05-2013 is premature and is liable to be dismissed on that score. The members of the respondent's family were not examined by the learned trial court in connection with the case made out by the respondent and the allegation of cruelty and desertion thrust upon the appellant is out and out false.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment impugned and has prayed for affirming the same.

8. We have considered the submission made by the parties and the material placed before us.

9. Admittedly marriage of the parties was so