JUDGMENT :

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.

1. This instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 16.08.2019 passed by the Court of the Ld. District Judge at Howrah in MAT Suit No. 463 of 2013.

2. Through the impugned judgment, the Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the Matrimonial Suit on contest without any cost holding that the petitioner/wife has been unable to substantiate the fact of cruelty on which basis she had filed the suit praying for divorce.

3. The appellant herein was the petitioner /wife before the Ld. Trial Court and the respondent herein was the respondent /husband.

4. Facts of the instant lis as pleaded in the averments

The petitioner/wife had initially filed the Matrimonial Suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stating that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 08.07.2000, according to Hindu rites and customs.

Thereafter, the petition was amended and the petition praying for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act was converted to be one under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 wherein the petitioner/wife has stated that their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2000 as per the Special Marriage Act.

Thereafter, once again the petition for divorce was amended seeking divorce under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 wherein the marriage has been said to be solemnized, not on 24.04.2000 under the Special Marriage Act as earlier stated, but on 08.07.2000 according to Hindu rites and customs.

5. Through the petition seeking divorce the petitioner has stated that a male child was born on 21.08.2003.

6. It has also been stated that as per demand of the family of the bridegroom, cash, 20 bhoris of gold ornaments, furnitures, fixtures, utensils , dress materials and gifts for the members of the family of the bridegroom were provided.

7. It has further been stated that thereafter once again Rs, 1,50,000/- had been demanded by the respondent /husband and the same was met by the father of the wife.

8. It has been also contended that the family members of the respondent tortured the petitioner by using abusive and provocative words and the same was coupled with physical assault.

9. It has been stated that during the month of January, 2009, once again money was demanded which could not be met by the father of the wife and as a consequence thereof, on 09.02.2009 the petitioner /wife along with her child were driven out of their matrimonial home and since then the petitioner /wife along with her son has been residing in her father’s house.

Relying upon the aforementioned facts and circumstances the wife has prayed for divorce.

10. Per contra, the respondent/husband contested the said Matrimonial Suit and controverted all the allegations placed by the wife.

11. The husband has stated that the marriage between the parties was solemnized as per the Special Marriage Act. It has further been stated that the marriage was registered on 23.05.2000 as per the Special Marriage Act and the social marriage was solemnized on 24.07.2000.

12. The husband contends that as the marriage was held not by way of negotiation, so the question of any demand did not arise at all.

13. It has also been stated that during the years between 2003 to 2013, both the parties resided in the house of the father of the wife.

14. It is contended that since no incident of torture upon her has ever been reported by the wife against the husband, so the allegations levelled against the husband are not at all correct and hence untenable in law.

15. It has also been contended that as the parties to the suit have been residing together in the house of the parents of the wife, any incident of torture or any other untoward incident occurring with the wife would have been obviously reported by the wife to her parents. Since no evidence of such report has been ever brought by the wife before Court, such allegations of torture