'Imposition of wife's friend, family on husband amounts to cruelty': Calcutta High Court grants divorce to husband

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has granted a divorce decree to a husband on the grounds of cruelty, which includes "imposition" of the wife’s friend and family on him and lodging of a false case of matrimonial cruelty by her.

The division bench presided by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya set aside the judgement of the trial court that refused a divorce decree in favour of the husband, terming it as perverse and erroneous.

It said in its judgement delivered on December 19 that a sufficiently strong case of mental cruelty has been made out by the appellant (husband) against the respondent (wife) to justify the grant of divorce on such grounds.

The bench, also comprising Justice Uday Kumar, granted the divorce decree to the husband on the grounds of cruelty, thereby severing the marriage between the two.

It noted that the continued presence of the woman friend and others of the wife's family at the official residential quarters of the husband at Kolaghat in East Midnapore district despite his objection and discomfort on such count is borne out by the records.

"Such imposition of friend and family of the respondent on the husband at his quarter against his will, sometimes even when the respondent-wife herself was not there, over a continuous period of time, can definitely be constituted as cruelty, since it might very well have made life impossible for the appellant, which would come within the broader purview of cruelty," the bench observed.

It said the wife, in the present case, unilaterally took a decision of refusal to have conjugal life with the husband for a considerable period, and there is admittedly a long period of continuous separation, unerringly indicating that the matrimonial bond has gone beyond repair.

The counsel for the husband submitted that the wife used to devote most of her family time with the woman friend, claiming that itself constitutes an act of cruelty.

The couple had got married on December 15, 2005.

The husband had on September 25, 2008, instituted the divorce suit and on October 27 the same year, the wife sent a complaint against the husband and his family by registered post to the Nabadwip police station, within whose jurisdictional limits the husband's paternal residence was situated.

A criminal proceeding was accordingly initiated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis of the complaint.

His lawyer produced before the bench the criminal court's judgement whereby the husband and his family members had been acquitted of the charges brought against them by the wife, contending that such acquittal and the timing of the complaint go on to show that it was entirely false.

It was argued that such baseless harassment also constitutes cruelty.

The wife's lawyer submitted that the husband had failed to prove his case of cruelty, and as such the divorce suit was rightly dismissed by the trial court judge.

Noting that the wife resided at her official quarters at Narkeldanga in Kolkata from May 2008, while the husband stayed at Kolaghat in East Midnapore district, the court said the deliberate intention of the wife not to return to conjugal life itself constitutes cruelty.

The division bench said since there was no contemporaneous complaint by the wife throughout the marriage and rather, she lived with the husband for three years from 2005 to 2008 without any grievance being raised, coupled with the fact that the wife’s mother and her friend lived in the Kolaghat quarters even when the wife was not there, indicate the allegations subsequently levelled against the husband were mere afterthought.

"It is quite evident that the bald allegations made in the complaint by the wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, without any particulars, details or even mention of the specific acts or dates of cruelty, were completely baseless and unsubstantiated," the bench said.

"Such bald and false allegations constitute sufficient cruelty to raise a presumption that the husband found it impossible to continue to live together with his spouse, thus coming within the ambit of cruelty as contemplated in matrimonial cases," it observed.