The Appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the High Court of Calcutta on 4th April, 2012.
The High Court held that the Appellant failed to prove mental cruelty on the part of the Respondent.
The Respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the application filed by the applicant for divorce.
Mr. Raja Chatterjee, learned companynsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Respondent deserted the Appellant about 17 years back and she refused to companye back and live with him.
There was matrimonial discord between the Appellant and the Respondent and they were living separately since the year 2000.
Notice was issued to the Respondent on 8 th October, 2012 to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution to the matrimonial dispute.
A girl child was born out of the wedlock on 14th April, 1993.
The parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre of the Supreme Court on 21 st November, 2012.
The evidence adduced by the Appellant was scrutinized by the trial companyrt to companye to a companyclusion that the Appellant did number make out a case for divorce.
The Respondent did number seek to appear before the High Court also.
She refuted all the averments in the application and sought for dismissal of the application for divorce.
The Appellant filed an application under Section 27 of the Act seeking a divorce.
The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta by the judgment dated 6 th August, 2009 dismissed the application for divorce.
However, in spite of the effort of the High Court, both the Appellant and the Respondent did number appear personally before the High Court.
The Appellant further averred in the application that the Respondent did number visit him even when he was seriously ill.
The High Court, taking numbere of the fact that the Appellant and the Respondent are judicial officers, made an attempt for companyciliation between the parties.
The Appellant alleged that the differences arose because of the improper behavior of the Respondent in number showing due respect to his ailing father.
It was further alleged that the Respondent deserted him and refused to give the custody of the child to him.
The Respondent did number participate in the proceedings before the trial companyrt after filing the written statement.
She chose number to appear before this Court.
The Respondent did number appear before the Mediation Centre in spite of service of the Notice.
The Respondent is accused of using intemperate language and threatening the Appellant with filing of criminal cases if he perused the petition for divorce which he proposed in the year 2005.
Despite taking numbere of the fact that the Appellant and the Respondent were living separately since the year 2000, the High Court dismissed the Appeal by holding that irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be a ground for divorce.
The companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court is assailed in the above Appeal.
Fresh Notice was ordered on 17th August, 2015 but the Respondent did number appear in spite of receipt of Notice again.
Their marriage was performed on 19th June, 1992 as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
After referring to the pleadings in the case, the trial companyrt found that the Appellant failed to prove cruelty on the part of the Respondent.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. The Appellant and the Respondent are District Judges working in the State of West Bengal.
The Respondent, who did number appear before the trial companyrt after filing of written statement, did number respond to the request made by the High Court for personal appearance.
