JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The appellant-husband has preferred the present first appeal against a judgment and decree dismissing his suit for divorce, which was instituted on the ground of cruelty.

2. The parties contracted marriage under the Special Marriage Act on December 15, 2005 and subsequently performed Hindu rites and customs, thus bringing the marriage within the purview of the Special Marriage Act. The parties married at Nabadwip, their matrimonial home, and thereafter shifted on March 8, 2006 to Kolaghat at Mecheda, where the husband has quarters by dint of his service. The parties lived together there and on May 9, 2008, the respondent-wife shifted to her own quarters at Narkeldanga, which was allotted to her by virtue of her service in the Railways at Sealdah.

3. On September 25, 2008, the appellant-husband-instituted the divorce suit. On October 27, 2008, the wife sent a complaint against the husband and his family by registered post to the Nabadwip Police Station. A criminal proceeding was accordingly initiated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent-wife has shifted to another accommodation at Uttarpara on June 14, 2016.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband submits that throughout the period of the parties’ stay together, one Mousumi Paul, a friend of the wife, was imposed on him and used to reside for a substantial period with the husband and wife. The mother of the respondent-wife also used to stay with the spouses. It is contended that the wife, instead of spending time with the husband, used to devote most of her family time with Mousumi Paul, which itself constitutes an act of cruelty.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that during the period of living together, the respondent-wife did not lodge any complaint before any forum but only after receiving the summons of the suit, lodged a false complaint against the appellant and his family, thereby harassing and maligning them without any basis.

6. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed by the appellant to bring on record the judgment passed in the criminal proceeding during the pendency of the appeal, whereby the accused persons, including the husband and his other family members, were acquitted. It is contended that such acquittal and the timing of the complaint go on to show that the complaint was entirely false. Such baseless harassment also constitutes cruelty, it is argued.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant next submits that the appellant-husband initially stayed with the respondent-wife in her Narkeldanga quarters for some days after her shifting but was subsequently turned out from the said premises. The wife never returned to the Kolaghat quarters of the husband.

8. Other allegations are also levelled against the respondent-wife, including that she was not interested in conjugal relationship and/or in having a child of the marriage. All of these, accordingly to the husband, cumulatively comprise of cruelty, furnishing sufficient ground for divorce.

9. The desertion of the husband by the wife without reasonable excuse and her refusal to return and resume conjugal life also constitutes cruelty, it is contended.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the cross-examination of the complainant/respondent-wife in the proceeding under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which evidence was exhibited in the matrimonial suit. Contrary to her contentions in the matrimonial suit, she admitted in such cross-examination that she had a love affair with the husband before marriage.

11. It was further admitted that no complaint was lodged by the wife with any authority before October 27, 2008. The wife also admits in her cross-examination in connection with the criminal proceeding that the husband was in Kolaghat, and not at Nabadwip, when the alleged incident at Nabadwip, leading to the com