JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

This is unfortunate matrimonial dispute which has shattered the matrimonial bond between the parties. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/husband challenging the impugned judgement and decree dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge 1st Court at Sealdah.

2. It is stated in the petition filed by the appellant/husband that he married with the respondent on 01.02.2009 under the provision of the SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT and after marriage they started to lead conjugal life as husband and wife by residing in the ancestral house of the appellant. Soon after their marriage the dispute and differences have been cropped up in between them. It is stated that the wife used to taunt and ridicule the family of the appellant using abusive language which caused mental cruelty to the appellant. It is further stated by the appellant that the respondent suppressed her actual age and neurological disease at the time of negotiation of marriage.

3. It is stated by the appellant that the respondent/wife left matrimonial home and returning on 21.05.2009 with her parents and some unknown persons threatened the mother of the appellant with dire consequences. This appellant was allegedly pressurised by the respondent to stay separately from his mother. The respondent and her family members allegedly used to give threat to file criminal case against the appellant and his mother. Ultimately, on 23.06.2009 the respondent left her matrimonial home but on 06.10.2009 she again returned and started staying separately at the matrimonial house. Under the above compelling circumstances this appellant filed matrimonial suit against the respondent seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

4. The respondent/wife entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement denying all the material allegations stated against her. It is the specific case of the respondent that she tried her best to convince the appellant to lead a happy and peaceful conjugal life but to no effect. It is further stated by the wife that this appellant developed an illegal relationship with a married woman of Paikpara. The respondent brought notice about this fact to her mother in law and sister-in-law and both of them assured her that the illicit relationship of the appellant would come to an end. It is averred by the respondent that she is still ready and willing to start conjugal life with the appellant but it is the appellant who from the very inception of their matrimonial life have avoided her and also started to live separately under the same roof.

5. The learned trial court on the basis of pleadings framed the issues as to whether the wife has treated the husband with cruelty and in order to prove the facts, the husband examined himself as PW1 whereas the wife has examined herself as DW1. The learned trial court after evaluating entire facts and evidence dismissed the suit of the husband; therefore, the instant appeal is preferred by the husband.

6. We shall deal and discuss with the evidence brought on record about cruelty.

7. Before going to discussion about the factum of cruelty it is profitable to quote the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 wherein it is held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live toget