JUDGMENT :

Supratim Bhattacharya, J. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant/wife, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order passed by the Ld. 11th Additional District Court at Alipore, 24 Parganas South in the Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2010 ( R. No. 1614 of 2016).

2. By the aforementioned Judgment, the Ld. Trial Court has been pleased to pass a decree of divorce on contest against the appellant/defendant/wife.

3. The appellant herein was the opposite party and the respondent herein was the petitioner respectively before the Learned Trial Court.

4. Through the application under Section 13 (1a) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, the respondent/plaintiff/husband had sought for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

5. The appellant/defendant/wife entered appearance and contested the suit denying the contentions of the respondent/plaintiff/husband.

6. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant/wife during his elaborate submissions has argued on the following points:

i) The impugned judgment has been passed on an erroneous legal conception. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the marriage was solemnized on 27.01.2008 under Hindu rites and customs and was registered on 10.06.2008.

ii) He has further submitted that the husband filed the petition for divorce during the month of July, 2009.

iii) The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the appellant/wife has all along expressed her intention to live with the respondent/husband as his wife, on the contrary it is the respondent/husband who has always refused to live with the wife.

iv) He has further submitted that the appellant/wife still intends to continue the marital ties as she never got the chance to lead a proper married life with her husband.

v) The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the appellant/wife had filed a complaint before the Karaya P.S. on 08.09.2009 against the respondent and his family members which has been registered as Karaya P.S. case No. 29 of 2009 under Sections 498A/406/307/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and ultimately charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 498A/406/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

vi) Ld. Counsel has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has erroneously decreed the matrimonial suit on the basis that the fact of lodging the case under Section 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE which ultimately did not lead to filing of charge-sheet against some of the family members of the respondent/husband and the dropping of charge under Section 307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , tantamounts to filing of a frivolous case against the respondent which has by itself inflicted mental cruelty upon the husband.

vii) He has further submitted that the said case under Section 498A is still pending and as such the Ld. Trial Court could not have assumed that cruelty on the part of the respondent/husband stood disproved.

viii) He has further submitted that the appellant/wife has never treated the respondent/husband with cruelty.

ix) The Ld. Counsel has stressed upon the point that allegations of irretrievable breakdown of marriage levelled by one party cannot form the basis of grant of decree of divorce.

x) The Ld. Counsel for the appellant/wife has submitted that filing of complaint and eventual acquittal of the husband could not amount to mental cruelty.

xi) He has further stressed upon the point that marriage cannot be dissolved on the ground of continuous separation where it involves normal wear and tear of marital life. The Ld. Counsel stressing upon the aforesaid facts and circumstances has prayed for allowing the instant appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.

xii) The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following judicial authorities:

i) (2014) 1 SCC 225,

ii) 2010 SCC 636,

iii) (2012) 4 CHN (Cal) 773,

iv) (2012) 1 WBLR (Cal) 527,

v) AIR 2020 SC 1198.

vi) (2002) 2 SCC 73.

7. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/petitioner/husband has submitted the following:

i) The Ld. Trial Court has passed the decree of divorce aft