Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) This review is in respect of a judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2016, passed by an earlier Division Bench of this Court in a first appeal bearing F.A. No. 178 of 2015. The first appeal was a matrimonial appeal preferred by the appellant / husband against the judgment and order dated 28th May, 2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.14 of 2009, whereby the matrimonial suit was dismissed under section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Appeal Court after considering the respective contentions of the parties - which included several judgments cited before it - came to a conclusion, in its considered opinion, that there was no 'irretrievable breakdown of marriage' and the same - in the absence of other grounds being substantiated - could not be considered as a ground for divorce. The following is the concluding observation made by the Hon'ble Appeal Court while proceeding to dismiss the appeal :- "In the light of the above and considering the fact that the essence of marriage is a sharing of common life, a sharing of all the happiness that life has to offer and all the misery that has to be faced in life, an experience of the joy that comes from enjoying in common things of the matter and of the spirit and from showering love and affection on one's offspring, living together is a symbol of such sharing in all its aspects and living apart is a symbol indicating the negation of such sharing. We find that the Trial Court was correct in its judgment on facts and law hence, these two issues are also decided in the negative. No relief can be awarded to the appellant/husband. The instant appeal meritless and it is accordingly dismissed."
(2.) The appellant / husband who is the review-applicant before us has sought to raise the following grounds in order to make out a case for review of the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2016 :- "I. For that the Hon'ble Division Bench failed to consider that there was an error apparent from the records in the matter of considering the ground of mental cruelty which has been decided in so many judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, different High Courts as well as the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. In this case the wife has alleged illicit relationship of the husband/petitioner with one Kakoli Mondal which she could not prove under any circumstances. In fact, the Hon'ble Division Bench did not consider the mental agony suffered by a person including mental pain which gave rise to a situation where the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. Again the husband as alleged of adultery in so far as the opposite party is concerned categorically stated that he was not the father of the aborted child. Taking into this together it would mean a situation of severe mental agony and amounting to mental cruelty which has been in so many words accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and decree for divorce has been granted. Even the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta has been pleased upon considering the judgment of the Apex Court was of the view that unfounded allegation of husband's illicit relationship with other women would amount to a mental cruelty. II. For that the Hon'ble Division Bench failed to consider that staying together under the same group is not a precondition for mental cruelty. A spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct while he or she is not staying under the same room. In this case the wife occupies the first floor whereupon an order of injunction has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 21.03.2013 in F.A.T. 302 of 2012 which subsequently was renumbered as F.A.No.178 of 2015. III. For that the Hon'ble Division Bench failed to consider that the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and subsequently followed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta indicating that the parties have been residing separately for now nearly 12 years and have no relationship as between themselves would amount to a ground of desertion for which a decree for divorce can be passed. IV. For that there has been error apparent on the face of record in considering the entire matter as a whole wherein it is apparent that categorical contention has been made indicating that the opposite party wife had led adulterous life and has alleged that the husband is otherwise connected with some other lady which categorically goes to show that the mental set of the opposite party was to castigate the husband in so many ways as possible."
(3.) The learned advocate for the review-applicant, during the course of his submissions, has referred to and relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Narain Das & Ors. vs. Chiranji Lal, 1925 AIR(All) 364.;