JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. The aura of sanctity affirmed with the institution of Hindu marriage has been brought to test on multifarious occasions before the Courts. The instant appeal preferred by the appellant/husband against the judgment dated 28th May, 2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court at Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 14 of 2009, dismissing the suit under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of marriage, is a manifestation of another such case. 2. Adumbrated in brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are stated below: Sans wanton details, it is the case of the appellant/husband that both parties are sui juris Hindus. Subsequent to their love affair; they were married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, in the office of Marriage Registrar on 13/7/2000 at Marred Pally, Secundrabad, Andhra Pradesh. A social marriage also took place on 15/01/2001 in Kolkata, the hometown of the appellant, where the respondent had been residing since January, 2002 whereas the appellant has been residing since 2004 subsequent to his new job in the city. Both parties worked at Hotel Taj Krishna, Hyderabad while their marriage took place, and have two issues from their wedlock, male child ‘Sujash’ and female child ‘Suvangi’ born on 24/04/2002 and 07/03/2004 respectively. 3. It is the case of appellant that post the birth of female child hereinabove mentioned, in the year 2004, the respondent's behaviour took a turn and she became extremely arrogant, intolerable, adamant, cruel, dangerous, harshly rude, cunning, shrewd, audacious, maniac, totally desperate and violent in character. She also did not care for the dignity of the family, that respondent suppressed her real age, educational qualification, and actual position at her workplace. Moreover, the appellant averred that the parties have not lived in cohabitation since 2003, and that his children's upbringing is looked after by himself and his parents, with no helping hand from the respondent. The appellant further stated that the respondent suppressed the fact of not being a virgin at the time of marriage, and conceived in April 2008, although the parties lived separately since 2003; and on the above stated grounds prayed for a decree of divorce as well as custody of his children. 4. The appellant further stated that the respondent suppressed the fact of not being a virgin at the time of marriage, and conceived in April 2008, although the parties lived separately since 2003; and on the above stated grounds prayed for a decree of divorce as well as custody of his children. 4. The respondent/wife opposed the above mentioned suit by filing vakalatnama and written statement, thereby denying all the material allegations categorically made against her in the plaint stating the contents therein to be untrue, baseless, false and fabricated for the purpose of the suit. She further added that trouble arose when appellant came in contact with a married woman, Kakali Mondal, wife of Dipak Mondal and mother of a nine year old male child, who was pursuing her divorce in Court; and decided to marry her. On opposition from family members, respondent was advised to take police assistance, whereby she filed written complaint on 13/12/2005 to the DIG (special) CID, W.B. Police, Bhabani Bhaban, Kolkata and the Officer of Women Grievance Cell, CID thereby initiating enquiry into the same. 5. It was also brought to the forefront by the respondent that the appellant had filed a divorce suit in the year 2005 before the Court of District Judge at Alipore being Matrimonial Suit No. 1630 of 2005, which was voluntarily withdrawn at the final hearing stage on 21/06/2008; therefore, rendering the present suit non-maintainable on the ground that all allegations were condoned by appellant through such withdrawal of earlier suit wherein same allegation are made. An amended plaint was filed by the appellant incorporating the filing and withdrawal of the previous divorce suit of 2005. 6. The Trial Court framed 7 major issues and an additional issue; and on perusal of the evidence on record and witness statements, came to the considered view that the appellant/husband had failed to substantiate the grounds for seeking divorce, thereby dismissing the said suit. 7. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the decision of the Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court on the grounds specified in the Memorandum of Appeal. 8. Taking into consideration the grounds stated in the Memorandum of Appeal, and the pleadings advanced at the behest of the parties, this Court has framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the respondent/wife's conduct towards appellant/husband amounts to cruelty? 2. 8. Taking into consideration the grounds stated in the Memorandum of Appeal, and the pleadings advanced at the behest of the parties, this Court has framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the respondent/wife's conduct towards appellant/husband amounts to cruelty? 2. Whether the respondent/wife suppressed her actual age, educational qualification and position at workplace at the time of marriage? 3. Whether there is ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ between the parties? 4. Whether the appellant/husband is entitled to the Decree of Divorce as prayed for; and whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit for the same? 5. To what other relief, if any is the appellant/husband entitled? 9. The appellant/husband stated in his affidavit-in-chief filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C. reiterating the averments in the plaint. 10. It is argued by his counsel that there are various grounds for claim on basis of cruelty and types of cruelty, which are identified by the Courts in their various judgments, and the Courts provide a legal backup for the sufferer in this sense. Various cases which discuss the same are given below:- Vishwanath v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, AIR 2012 (6) Scale 190 . Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, 2004 AIR All 1. Yudhishthir Singh v. Smt. Sarita, AIR 2002 Raj. 382 . 11. On perusal of the ratio set by the above mentioned cases and considering the evidence as well as the witness statements adduced, it was held by the judgment impugned that there is no material to establish that wife had been cruel or troubled the husband and her in-laws. The Trial Court observed that no family member or friends came forward to depose evidence to corroborate the allegations made by the husband, thereby drawing adverse presumption against him under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court found merit in the said finding of the Trial Court and express similar view in this regard, and opposition raised by appellant stating that a question of ‘interested witness’ might have arisen and that, there is no adverse presumption within the meaning of Section 111(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is meritless. 12. Not providing adequate time to children cannot be considered as ground of cruelty towards the husband as both the husband and the wife were working and after school time the grand parents looked after the children. 12. Not providing adequate time to children cannot be considered as ground of cruelty towards the husband as both the husband and the wife were working and after school time the grand parents looked after the children. If this be a ground of cruelty of wife towards her husband then by the same yardstick it would also be a ground of cruelty by the husband against the wife. Moreover, it becomes evident from statement of Respondent that family members of the appellant were opposed to his wish to marry Kakali Mondal and in order to save the family from disaster, they had advised the wife to take police assistance, whereby she filed written complaint on 13/12/2005 to the DIG (Special) CID, W.B. Police, Bhabani Bhaban, Kolkata and the Officer of Women Grievance Cell, CID, thereby initiating enquiry into the same. Therefore, no instance of causing threat of police intervention can be made out against the respondent/wife. Particularly when she on the advice of her in laws and relatives of the husband family had lodged the FIR to save her family life from disaster. 13. In view of the above stated reasons, this issue was decided in the negative by the Trial Court. 14. Second contention of the appellant/husband that his wife suppressed her actual age, educational qualification and position at workplace also does not impress us. The contention that the wife is 8 years older to the husband is not corroborated with any material evidence. Moreover, the marriage between the parties took place subsequent to a love affair between them, rendering the age-factor baseless. Their marriage was also registered hence the husband had all the opportunities to verify her actual age from her testimonials at her workplace and before the Registrar of Marriages. Similarly, there is no evidence to prove the suppression of actual educational qualification either. Both the parties worked in the same Hotel Taj Krishna, Hyderabad at the time of marriage. This is indicative of the fact that the husband had all means of determining the position of the wife at the Hotel, and allegations in this regard are baseless. On the above grounds, this issue was also decided in the negative. It appears to us to be an afterthought when the husband came in contact with Kakali Mondal and wanted to divorce his wife. 15. In Smt. Anju Kundu v. Sri. On the above grounds, this issue was also decided in the negative. It appears to us to be an afterthought when the husband came in contact with Kakali Mondal and wanted to divorce his wife. 15. In Smt. Anju Kundu v. Sri. Shyamal Kumar Kundu, F.A No. 191 of 2006, in the following observation may be quoted with approval: “The marriage in one's life, according to the Hindu Marriage Act, is, in our opinion, not such a brittle affair which can be annulled on the ground of mere suppression of age unless it is proved that the party applying for annulment did his best to ascertain the real age and could not know the real age for deliberate fraud practised on behalf of the other spouse by use of forged official documents and over and above, such suppression of fact is a substantial one causing prejudice to the party applying for annulment justifying grant of such decree. The same principle should be followed while dealing with a case of suppression of educational qualification.” 16. A similar view is taken by the Kerala High Court in V.C. Usha v. K.P. Sreenarayanan, MFA No. 1419 of 2001(B). 17. Since the two issues are related, this court for the sake of brevity considers it apt to consider them together. The appellant/husband states that the marriage should dissolve on the basis of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’. It, therefore, becomes pertinent for this Court to consider various judicial pronouncements in this regard, as ‘irretrievable breakdown’ is not incorporated as a ground of divorce in the statute books. 18. In Apurba Mohan Ghosh v. Manashi Ghosh, it has been held that in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, the Court would grant relief only when any of the statutory grounds mentioned in the Act is found to exist. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat it has been held that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground by itself for a decree of divorce. While scrutinizing the evidence on record it may be relevant to determine as to whether the ground alleged is made out. 19. The judicial trend seems to be moving towards an acceptance of ‘irretrievable breakdown’ for divorce. While scrutinizing the evidence on record it may be relevant to determine as to whether the ground alleged is made out. 19. The judicial trend seems to be moving towards an acceptance of ‘irretrievable breakdown’ for divorce. In earlier cases, the Supreme Court granted a divorce, observing that where the marriage had been wrecked beyond any hope of salvation, public interest and the interests of all concerned lay in the recognition, in law, of this fact. Faulty part of this theory is that a person cannot take advantage of his/her own wrongdoing. For example, a man may not commit adultery or inflict cruelty and file a petition for divorce. Divorce can only be sought by the ‘hurt’ or ‘aggrieved’ party who has been at the receiving end of the other party's offensive conduct. 20. Another area of concern has been the introduction or acceptance of “irretrievable breakdown” as a ground for divorce may work against the interests of women, given the gender disparities and large number of women deserted by their husbands. It is in this context that the Supreme Court recently had occasion to revisit the issue of irretrievable breakdown as grounds for divorce, in the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Manju Sharma, 2009 (3) scale 425 , wherein the same was not considered to constitute as a sole ground in the absence of proof of existence of other grounds. 21. In the light of the above judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ and the same in the absence of the other grounds being substantiated, cannot be considered as ground for divorce. 22. 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. 23. 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. 23. 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. 24. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.