MUKUL ROY Vs. SAMAR BIJOY ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The cause of action in the plaint is framed principally on the ground of cruelty. On making a search of the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action, the major part of it, if not the whole, relates to refusal of sex by the wife. They had physical relationship for a few days only. This pleading in the plaint is not controverted in the written statement. The trouble seems to have taken firm root by 2001. According to the respondent/husband the wife completely refused to have physical relationship with him from that time.

(2.) The judgement analyses the relationship of the parties from the very beginning, the absence of physical relationship between them from 2001, their separated lives and so on and came to the conclusion that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably. On that ground divorce was granted.

(3.) In my opinion, here he was in complete error. The Supreme Court in (Satish Sitole -versus-Smt. Ganga reported in AIR 2008 SC3093) remarked that out of sixteen years of marriage in that case the parties had been living separately for fourteen years. The marriage had broken down irretrievably. Since the marriage between the parties was dead for all practical purposes and there was no chance of it being retrieved, "the continuance of such marriage would amount to cruelty".