Irretrievable breakdown of marriage can substantiate grounds of cruelty and desertion for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, despite not being an independent ground in Indian law.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant-wife against a judgment and decree whereby the learned Trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit for divorce.

2. The marriage between the parties took place on June 18, 2007 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1954 Act”). Upon such marriage, the appellant/wife moved to her matrimonial home at Sankrail, Howrah and started residing there. The appellant, upon completion of her MBBS Course, joined nursing homes in and around Kolkata as medical attendant in the year 2008, after completion of her housestaffship.

3. In 2009, the appellant, then a practising doctor, joined the Manickchak Hospital at Malda as a Medical Officer and became permanent in the year 2010 at the Malda Bamungola Rural Hospital. Later on, in the year 2011, the appellant joined the West Bengal Health Services at Margram Public Health Centre in the District of Birbhum. However, she applied and got a posting at the Public Health Centre, Hazi St. Mollah, BPHC, Sankrail and resided in her matrimonial home.

4. In July, 2015, the appellant was transferred to Kurseong Sub-Divisional Hospital. Meanwhile, a son was born on October 24, 2011 to the parties in the said wedlock.

5. The wife alleged that she faced mental torture from her husband, that is the respondent, and his family while she was in her matrimonial home. The respondent/husband allegedly siphoned off a loan of Rs.23,00,000/- which the appellant took for construction of a house for the parties, for which the appellant/wife is still having to pay the EMIs. It is also alleged by the wife that she purchased a life insurance, for which she is having to pay the premium all along, without any contribution being made by the respondent/husband in that regard.

6. The wife alleges that the respondent-husband gave a false impression before marriage that he was an established businessman but later it was found that he is merely a day labour.

7. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent/husband deserted her and her son in the year 2015, since when they have been living separately. Only occasionally, it is alleged, the husband used to visit the appellant/wife's quarter at Kurseong, merely for the purpose of extracting money from her. A major chunk of the wife's salary, allegedly, was taken by the respondent/husband. The appellant further alleges that the respondent did not visit the appellant or stood by her side throughout the period of unrest which befell Kurseong and the northern districts of West Bengal between June and October, 2017.

8. In the plaint, the appellant also alleged that the husband developed an intimate relationship with a married lady and the appellant apprehended sexual intercourse having taken place between the two. It is alleged that when the appellant protested, the husband blatantly gave out that he would continue with the relationship and the appellant/wife should not interfere. The said lady also was taken to a tour with the parties to Coochbehar, despite her husband not being able to go there. The appellant/wife alleges further that the respondent has no attachment to his son, who is being brought up entirely by the appellant/wife.

9. The respondent/husband, on the other hand, refutes such allegations and declares that he does not want divorce to be granted. According to the respondent/husband, he was in business but had to stop it due to the insistence of the appellant/wife, since she was earning enough to support the family. The respondent also alleges that he loves his son but the appellant prevents him from physically meeting the son, due to which he had to shift to Kurseong. It is alleged that, on the request of the appellant/wife, the respondent/husband went to Kurseong, where they celebrated their reunion on January 1, 2020 at a hotel named 'Amarjeet' in Kurseong, whereafter they started residing together regularly. However, the respondent alleges tha