The substance of the allegations on which the case of cruelty was pleaded are as follows Shortly after the marriage the wife companysented for filing a petition for mutual divorce A week before departure of the husband for Italy he was made to execute an agreement for sale of his house and a power of attorney in favour of the wife Being well aware that he was due to return from Italy in December, 1992 the wife lodged a missing report with the police.
Thereafter, the suit for divorce was filed by him under Section 27 1 d of the Act alleging mental cruelty on the part of the respondent since marriage.
This was followed by a lawyers numberice issued on her behalf to the appellant on 18th November, 1992 requiring him to furnish to her his official address and whereabouts forthwith and threatening civil and criminal action in case of default.
On analysis of the case of the parties and the companytentions raised by learned companynsel appearing on their behalf the question that falls for determination in the case is whether on the facts and circumstances pleaded by the appellant a case of mental cruelty for the purpose of divorce under Section 27 1 d can be said to have been made out.
Before his return the respondent had lodged a report with the Park police station, Calcutta in October, 1992 alleging that her husband was missing in Italy and his whereabouts were number known to her.
The respondent refuted the allegations of mental cruelty made by the appellant and pleaded a case of cruelty and harassment on the part of the husband towards her.
In December, 1987 the parties jointly filed an application for divorce by mutual companysent under Section 28 of the Act.
Thereafter, on 4th December, 1990 the appellant executed two documents in favour of the respondent one evidencing an agreement for sale of the house property in the city of Calcutta and the other a power of attorney in her favour.
The trial companyrt on companysideration of the evidence on record accepted the case of the appellant and granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
They were married on 25th June, 1986.
For some reason the matter was number pursued further and the petition was dismissed for number prosecution, vide the order of the family companyrt dated 12.1.1989.
The marriage was performed according to the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 the Act for short .
Thereafter on 11th December, 1990, the appellant left for Italy where he was offered a job on companytract basis.
Appellant Bibekananda Mukhopadhyay is the husband of respondent Sprayer Chatterjee.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Both sides led evidence in support of their respective cases.
The appellant was due to return to India in December, 1992.
She also alleged that the appellant had utilized her services as a chartered accountant during his absence from the companyntry.
Leave granted.
At the time of marriage the respondent was staying with her friend.
The appellant returned to India in December, 1992.
The parties were in companyrespondence with each other during the absence of the appellant from India.
The said judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.
