The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to establish the seriousness and impact of allegations of cruelty and adultery on the petitioner's mental health and reputation to grant a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a suit for divorce and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st December, 2012, passed by the learned District Judge, Purulia, in Matrimonial Suit No. 115 of 2011, thereby dismissing petitioner's/Appellant's prayer for dissolution of marriage. Being, dissatisfied, the husband /appellant has come up with the present appeal.

2. Appellant /husband filed Mat Suit No. 115/2011 in the court of the District Judge at Purulia for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The case made out by the petitioner in short is that parties married according to Hindu rities and customs on 01.12.2009. Few days after marriage respondent started various sorts of physical and mental torture upon the petitioner. The respondent used to leave the house of the petitioner voluntarily and used to go her parent's house regularly. Respondent had earlier love affair with some other person, which petitioner requested her to forget, but in vain. Petitioner noticed some days after marriage that in the midnight the respondent was talking over telephone secretly and later on petitioner came to learn that the respondent is living an adulterous life with one person. On being protest by the petitioner, respondent left her matrimonial home without permission of petitioner and since then, she is residing in her paternal house. Petitioner made several attempts to bring her back but the respondent refused to resume matrimonial tie.

3. On the basis of prayer made by petitioner before protection officer, Purulia on 25.07.2010, both the parties were called by protection officer Purulia on 08.09.2010, but before appearing to the protection officer, Purulia, the respondent lodged an information with the Purulia (Town) P.S. and on the basis of which Purulia (Town) P.S. case No. 133 of 2010 dated 07.09.2010 under section 498/406 I.P.C. was started against petitioner, his mother, Sister- in-law and brother of petitioner.

4. In view of above marital tie has been broken down and the existence of marital tie is nothing but an agony of both the parties. Accordingly petitioner has prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. Petitioner by way of filing certified copy of judgment passed in G.R. case No. 941/2010, which was started on the basis of Purulia (T) P.S. FIR No. 133/2010 dated 07/09/2010, prayed for admitting the same in evidence under the provision of Order XLI, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. It appears that petitioner in paragraph 17 of plaint has made reference of said case in support of his allegation of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the respondent to the petitioner. After disposal of present Mat Suit No. 115 of 2011 by the Trial Court , said G.R. Case No. 941/2010 was disposed of on 07.05.2013 and for which he could not produce the same before Trial Court. Considering the same, prayer for admitting in evidence, copy of Judgement passed in G.R. Case No. 941/2010 by the judicial magistrate, 3rd Court, Purulia, is allowed.

5. The suit was contested by the wife/ Respondent by filing written statement, thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The defence taken by Respondent /wife is that she was facing mental and physical torture within very short period after marriage by her husband and in-laws for no fault of her own. The respondent noticed that there is illicit relation in between her husband /petitioner and his elder brother's wife and on protest, respondent was subjected to severe mental pain and physical torture by the petitioner. The petitioner used to snatch all the salary of the respondent and on protest she was subjected to physical torture by her husband and mother-in- law.

6. In the month of February, 2010, the Respondent became pregnant and on hearing the same, petitioner and all the family members of petitioner started to create pressure upon her for termination of pregnancy. The res