JUDGMENT :

1. The report of the department as regards service be kept with the record.

2. In spite of several attempts being made to ensure the appearance of the respondent, the respondent is not represented. The administrative notices appeared to have been received on behalf of the respondent by one "Pinki Singh". The respondent has adequate notice of the pendency of this appeal and in spite of being aware of the fact that this appeal is likely to be taken up for hearing, the respondent has chosen not to contest the proceeding.

3. The appellant has filed the suit for divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. In the Plaint, the appellant has clearly stated that she was tortured by the respondent and there was no relationship of husband and wife between them. They have never cohabited with each other. The appellant also refers to a few complaints made to the local police station. The appellant claims that they came to know each other through a common friend in the year 2013 and became good friend which ultimately culminated into a romantic relationship. The petitioner was innocent and brought up in a homely atmosphere. She could not fathom the trick played by the respondent in convincing her to marry before a Registrar with a promise that they would get married socially. He also did not disclose his details or family background. The petitioner has also stated that after she became aware of the truth and the mundane reality, she found that on false promise he married her. It is further alleged that the respondent even tortured her physically and mentally on road or in a place of visitation. The respondent entered appearance and filed written statement. He accepted that the present relationship was the outcome of a friendship, but he denied that he had taken advantage of her simplicity or innocence. He denied any foul play before the Registry Office. He denied all allegations of cruelty, lack of cohabitation and desertion. He stated that he is willing to take back the plaintiff and ready to lead happy married life. The plaintiff examined two witnesses. The plaintiff was P.W- 1 and her mother was P.W.-2. In her examination, the plaintiff has categorically stated that they have never lived as husband and wife. Her husband used to demand money from her or from her parents as the appellant is economically well-off and was educationally more qualified than the respondent. The mother of the plaintiff, P.W.-2 has clearly stated that her daughter was never taken to the house of the husband in order to lead a life as husband and wife and they have never cohabited with each other. It was only in January, 2015, that she came to know from her daughter that she got married to the respondent and the said respondent had inflicted physical and mental torture. She referred to few incidents happened on 30th May, 2015 and 2nd June, 2015 to show that her daughter was under constant fear and threat from the respondent. The respondent did not lead any evidence.

4. It was on the basis of such evidence, the Trial Court decided the suit. The Trial Court has come to a definite finding from the evidence on record that the plaintiff was able to prove non-consummation of marriage but in deciding the said issue the learned Trial Judge refers to Section 25 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Under Section 25(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the Court can pass a decree of nullity if the marriage has not been consummated owing to the willful refusal of the respondent to consummate the marriage. In the instant case, it is quite evident from the evidence of the parties that none of the parties are willing to cohabit and there was no independent evidence of the respondent to show that the marriage was consummated. The respondent did not file any application for restitution of any conjugal rights. It is important to note that the parties are living separately for almost 10 years now and the non-appearance of the husband in the ap