JUDGMENT Manojit Mandal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Krishnagar, Nadia in Matrimonial Suit No. 725 of 2010 by which the learned Trial Court dismissed the matrimonial suit which was filed by the appellant/wife against the respondent/husband praying for dissolution of marriage under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). 2. Admittedly, the parties were married according to the Special Marriage Act on 01.10.1999. Appellant/wife prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The case of the appellant/wife is that the marriage between them was solemnized on 01.10.1999 according to Special Marriage Act and thereafter, their marriage was duly solemnized on 28.06.2000 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Marriage was duly consummated. The Respondent/husband is an Army personnel and at present he is attached with 56 APO, Ranchi, Jharkhand. Some days after their marriage, the respondent/husband started to put tremendous pressure on her to bring money from her father's house for the purpose of constructing a house at Krishnagar town. The appellant/wife wanted to be shifted to his place of service but, the respondent/husband turned down her such proposal. Due to such tremendous pressure, her relatives somehow managed to purchase a piece of land at Ghurni Petni Pukur lane and registered the same in her name and also constructed a pucca house thereon and paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent/husband, as demanded by him. The further case of the appellant/wife is that she started residing in the said house and respondent/husband used to come there occasionally while he was on leave. The appellant/wife has further alleged that the respondent/husband was a drunker and when he used to come to the house, brought his friends and ordered her to serve liquor to them and in case, she denied to do so, the respondent/husband brutally assaulted her. On 11.05.2003 she gave birth to a female child namely, Sarita Pramanik, but, despite the fact the respondent/husband used to put pressure on her to bring money from her father's house as he wanted to construct first floor of the house. But, her relatives failed to fulfill the demand of Rs. On 11.05.2003 she gave birth to a female child namely, Sarita Pramanik, but, despite the fact the respondent/husband used to put pressure on her to bring money from her father's house as he wanted to construct first floor of the house. But, her relatives failed to fulfill the demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- and as a result of which respondent/husband started to inflict physical and mental torture on her and got associated with various women for leading adulterous life and on being protested by her, respondent/husband used to brutally assault her. The further case of the appellant/wife is that the respondent/husband took a loan by mortgaging the house and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from her paternal house but, the respondent/husband collected a fire arm and hurled threats on her to kill her by means of the said fire arm if she failed to bring the money of Rs. 1,50,000/-from her paternal house. Sometime, in the first week of April, 2010, the respondent/husband came to her house and stayed there with her till April 25, 2010. During the period, respondent/husband inflicted tremendous physical and mental torture both on her and her daughter. Further, case of the appellant/wife is that respondent/husband has been trying to marry another woman and openly expressed that he would get Rs. 3,00,000/- as dowry on the marriage with second wife. Despite, several requests made, respondent/husband did not amend his nature and character and all such efforts were in vain. Lastly, on July 26, 2010 respondent/husband hurled threats on her to bring the said money of Rs. 1,50,000/- from any source, otherwise, respondent/husband would kill her and marry another woman. The application for dissolution of marriage was filed in the court of Learned District Judge at Krishnagar, Nadia on 27.07.2010. 3. The suit was contested by the respondent/husband by filing written statement contending, inter alia, that the appellant/wife gave tremendous pressure upon him to live separately from his family and in order to purchase a peace in the family, he was compelled to purchase a piece of land at Mouza 96, Radhanagar, in her name and he also paid the loan amount through her brother. Further, case of the respondent/husband is that in the month of July, 2010, he was intimated by the brother of the appellant/wife that she was leading adulterous life with one Anjan Roy and on hearing the same, he come to Krishnagar and knew the fact. Further case of the respondent/husband is that he came to know that the appellant/wife had left her matrimonial house with all her belongings with said Anjan Roy and settled with him in a rented house of Buro Saha at Nagendranagar. The appellant/wife intended to sell out the house i.e. two-storey building and in order to prevent her from making such alienation, he filed a civil suit against appellant/wife and obtained an order of injunction after filing a Misc. appeal in the Court of learned District Judge as learned Trial Court originally refused to grant such order of injunction. The notice of injunction could not be served upon the appellant/wife as she avoided the same by shifting her residence from one place to another. Further, case of the respondent/husband is that the appellant/wife filed several criminal cases against him in order to harass him and to lead adulterous life with said Anjan Roy. In the circumstances, the respondent/husband has prayed for dismissal of the instant Matrimonial Suit with cost. 4. At the trial, both sides led evidence and the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment found that the allegation of cruelty by the respondent/husband was not sustained. The learned Trial Court also observed that the appellant/wife has miserably failed to prove her case for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit on contest but without any order as to costs. 5. Being dissatisfied, the appellant/wife has come with the present appeal. 6. Mr. Susenjit Banik, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/ wife vehemently contended before us that the learned trial court has committed wrong and erred in law in dismissing the suit. He further urged that the learned trial judge while dismissing the suit for divorce filed by the appellant/wife has misconstrued the concept of cruelty as contemplated under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. He further urged that the learned trial judge while dismissing the suit for divorce filed by the appellant/wife has misconstrued the concept of cruelty as contemplated under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. He further urged that the learned Trial Judge has wrongly held that the appellant/wife has not stated about any specific and/or single incident of mental and physical torture to substantiate the allegation of cruelty upon her by the husband/respondent and the same is contrary to the evidence on record. He further urged that the learned Trial Judge should not have relied upon the evidence of the brother and mother of the appellant/wife i.e. D.W.2 and D.W. 3 in as much as the said witness cannot be a credible witness in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. In spite of service of publication, respondent/husband did not appear before this Court and as such none appeared to argue on behalf of the respondent/husband. 8. Upon taking into consideration the submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/wife and on perusal of the materials on record, we find that admittedly, the parties were married on October 1, 1999 according to the said Act. Admittedly, their marriage was duly consummated. It is also an admitted position that appellant/wife gave birth to a female child, namely, Sarita Pramanik on May 11, 2003 in the wedlock. Admittedly, the parties to the suit are living separately at their respective residential addresses as mentioned in the cause title of the plaint. It is also an admitted position that respondent/husband is an army personnel and he used to visit his place of residence twice or thrice in a year. Now, the point is to be decided in this appeal is:- Whether the learned Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit for divorce? 9. Let us now have a glance to the oral evidence on record adduced by the parties. The wife has examined herself as P.W.1. According to her, after expiry of some days of their marriage, her husband started to create torture upon her, to bring money from her father's house for the purpose of constructing a house at Krishnagar town. 9. Let us now have a glance to the oral evidence on record adduced by the parties. The wife has examined herself as P.W.1. According to her, after expiry of some days of their marriage, her husband started to create torture upon her, to bring money from her father's house for the purpose of constructing a house at Krishnagar town. She has further stated that her husband was a drunker when he came home on leave and her husband used to bring his friends and ordered her to serve liquor to them and in case of denial, her husband brutally assaulted her. She has further deposed that after the birth of a female child, her husband started to create pressure upon her for bringing money from her father's house so that, her husband can construct the first floor of the house. As her relatives failed to fulfill his illegal demand, her husband started to inflict both physical and mental torture upon her and also started to associate with various women adulterously and on protest, she was brutally assaulted. She has further stated that her husband for the last time in the first week of April, 2010 came to his house and stayed with her till April 25, 2010 and at that time her husband inflicted tremendous physical and mental torture both on her and her daughter. She has further deposed that several times, she herself, her relatives and well-wishers requested to her husband to amend his character but all their efforts were in vain. The appellant/wife has nowhere in the plaint as well as in her evidence stated about the specific date or place of such assault and torture on her by the respondent/husband. P.W. 2 is a daughter of the appellant/wife and she has deposed that her father came to house after getting leave from his place of service and her father is a drunker and when he came on leave, her father used to bring his friends and ordered her mother to serve liquor to them and in case of denial, her father brutally assaulted her mother. She has further deposed that in the first week of April, 2010, her father came from service place and lived with them till 25.04.2010 and at that point of time her father inflicted tremendous physical and mental torture on her mother and even she was not exempted from such kind of brutal torture. Sometimes in her presence, her father brutally assaulted her mother under drunken condition. Therefore, on consideration of the evidence of P.W. 2, it appears that she has nowhere stated in her evidence about the particular date or place of such assault and torture on her and her mother by the respondent/husband. 10. The matrimonial issues are essentially a family matter and, therefore, the most reliable and effective witness would be either the members of the family or the close relatives or even to some extent distant relatives or friends. But in this case, the appellant/wife has not examined her mother and brother to speak of assault and torture on her by the husband though it is alleged that her relatives managed to purchase land in her name and constructed a pucca house in the said purchased land and paid Rs. 75,000/- as per demand of her husband. Rather, brother and mother of the appellant/wife appeared before this Court and deposed before this Court as D.W.2 and D.W. 3 respectively in favour of the respondent/husband. In my considered view, the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 are not reliable and acceptable in view of evidence of DW 2 and DW 3 and as no specific date and time of alleged torture has been stated by the PW 1 and PW 2. 11. Respondent/Husband as D.W.1 has deposed that he was compelled to purchase a piece of land at Mouza 96, Radhanagar under P.S. Kotwali, District Nadia, by registered Deed of Sale on 03.12.2011 in the name of the appellant/wife and all negotiations of purchase was made by Sanchoy Roy, the only brother of the appellant/wife. He has further deposed that he took loan from the Bank and made construction of two-storey building stage by stage. He has further deposed that he took loan from the Bank and made construction of two-storey building stage by stage. He has further deposed that his brother-in-law, Sanchoy Roy, intimated him that his own sister i.e. the appellant/wife was leading adulterous life with Anjan Roy in spite of their protest for which he at once came to Krishnagar but in this meantime his wife left his house of Petnipukur Lane of Radhanagar with her daughter along with all her belongings with one Anjan Roy and began to live with him in a rented house of Buro Saha at Negendranagar. He has further deposed that appellant/wife is leading adulterous life with the said Anjan Roy. This witness was cross-examined at length and in full. But nothing was obtained to shake the credence of his evidence. No suggestion was also thrown to the D.W.1 that he did not purchase the land in the name of his wife on taking loan from the Bank and appellant/wife is not leading any adulterous life with Anjan Roy. D.W. 2 is the brother of appellant/wife, Shri Sanchoy Roy. He has duly corroborated the evidence of the D.W. 1 by saying that respondent/husband purchased 4 decimals of land of Plot no. 84 appertaining to Khatian No. 643 of Radhanagar Mouza under P.S. Kotwali in the name of his sister and constructed a two-storey building on it. The respondent/husband took loan from United Bank of India in the name of his sister by deposing title deed. He himself and his mother detected from the early month of July that his sister was living together in the same bed room with Anjan Roy in spite of their vehement protest but his sister did not pay any heed and began to lead adulterous life with the said Anjan Roy. He has further deposed that he found that the said Anjan Roy was residing with his sister in a rented house of Buro Saha at Nagendranagar and from there she has shifted to many places accompanying said Anjan Roy and her daughter time to time. This witness has stoutly denied the suggestion that respondent/husband used to torture to his sister and/or Anjan Roy used to raise objection against the said torture inflicted by his brother-in-law and/or for the reason Anjan Roy has been falsely implicated into the case. This witness has stoutly denied the suggestion that respondent/husband used to torture to his sister and/or Anjan Roy used to raise objection against the said torture inflicted by his brother-in-law and/or for the reason Anjan Roy has been falsely implicated into the case. D.W. 3 is the mother of the appellant/wife who has duly corroborated statement of D.W.1 and D.W.2 by saying that the appellant/wife is her daughter and her daughter has left the house with one Anjan Roy and is living with him. Her daughter is living with said Anjan Roy in the same bed room in spite of their vehement protest and that her son-in-law i.e. respondent/husband never demanded any dowry from them nor demanded any amount from them. D.W. 1, D.W.2 and D.W. 3 were cross-examined by the appellant/wife at length but nothing was obtained to shake the credence of their statements. The appellant/wife has clearly and categorically admitted in her cross-examination that on 10.1.2012 she was residing at Nagendranagar in the house of Buro Saha and that she is now residing in a tenanted house in Shaktinagar Anganapara for last one year and that she was residing at Angana in the house of one Mousumi Sarkar and prior to that she used to reside at Radhananar in the house of Shibani Sarkar and that she has changed the house three times. 12. Under these facts and circumstances and on consideration of the entire evidence and the materials on record, it may be concluded that the appellant/wife while praying for a decree of divorce, did not lead any convincing evidence to prove the alleged cruelty by the husband. Rather, the evidence on record goes to indicate some ill treatment by the appellant/wife which may compel the husband to stay occasionally in the house of D.W.2 and D.W. 3. 13. In view of the above premises, I am of the opinion that the allegation, whatsoever, made by the appellant/wife does not, however, appear to be convincing at all. On consideration of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 it may be concluded that the conduct of the respondent/husband does not amount to mental cruelty. 14. In the result, I am of the view that no question of cruelty, be it physical and mental, arises in the facts of the present case. On consideration of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 it may be concluded that the conduct of the respondent/husband does not amount to mental cruelty. 14. In the result, I am of the view that no question of cruelty, be it physical and mental, arises in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was justified in holding that there is no material to suggest that the respondent/husband treated the appellant/wife with mental and physical cruelty. 15. In the facts and circumstances, I concur with the findings of the Trial Court in the impugned judgment that the evidence led by the wife on this point does not prove that wife was subjected to cruelty both physically and mentally by the respondent/husband. I also find that the ground of cruelty is also rightly been found not to have been established by the Court below. 16. For all the reasons stated above there does not appear to be any illegality, or infirmity or error in the findings of the impugned judgment and order dated February 27, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Krishnagar, District-Nadia, in MAT Suit No. 725 of 2010. The order impugned is affirmed and the F.A. is accordingly dismissed. 17. There will be no order as to costs. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Record be sent down to the Trial Court for information. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on their usual undertaking. I agree