False Allegations Of Husband's Illicit Affair, Attempt To Kill Child Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya has held that unsubstantiated allegations made by a spouse in pleadings — including accusations of illicit affairs, instigation of immoral conduct, and attempted harm to a child — constitute mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage. Allowing a husband's appeal against the dismissal of his divorce petition, the Court set aside the trial court's order, finding that the wife's pleaded allegations, unsupported by any corroborating evidence, caused mental agony and social stigma amounting to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
The appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute in which the husband challenged the dismissal of his divorce suit filed on the ground of mental cruelty. The wife, in her written statement, alleged that the husband and his family subjected her to physical and mental torture after the birth of their second daughter. She claimed that on February 15, 2019, the husband’s family attempted to kill the child and that the husband addressed her in filthy language and circulated her mobile number to others, encouraging immoral proposals. She also alleged that the husband maintained an illicit relationship with another woman. Based on such allegations, the wife lodged a police complaint which led to the registration of a criminal case under Sections 498A, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The husband contended that the allegations made by the wife were false and unsupported by evidence and that such reckless accusations caused mental cruelty. During trial, the wife deposed as DW-1 and her mother as DW-2. The husband pointed out contradictions between their testimonies regarding whether the wife stayed in the matrimonial home after December 15, 2018. He also argued that the alleged illicit relationship and other accusations were not supported by independent evidence. The wife, on the other hand, contended that the allegations in her written statement were based on reasonable grounds and that the husband failed to prove acts of cruelty attributed to her. The trial court dismissed the divorce suit, following which the husband filed the present appeal challenging that decision.
The Court examined whether the husband had established mental cruelty and whether the allegations made by the wife were substantiated by evidence. The Bench observed that the allegations raised by the husband regarding the wife’s behaviour during her stay in the matrimonial home were not supported by adequate evidence. It recorded that “the said allegations could not substantiated by the appellant-husband by independent corroborative evidence.” The Court further stated that “some of the allegations, evidently, are vague in nature and do not come within the purview of mental cruelty.”
Regarding the testimony of the husband’s witness, the Court recorded that the evidence did not inspire confidence. It stated that “the evidence of PW-2 does not inspire confidence, nor could it be held to be sufficient corroboration of the plaint case or the evidence of PW-1.” The Court also noted the absence of testimony from family members who could have corroborated the husband’s allegations, recording that “none of the family members of the appellant-husband, who would be the best witnesses to substantiate the case of mental cruelty… was brought forward as witness.”
The Bench then examined the allegations made by the wife against the husband. It observed that the claim that the husband’s family attempted to kill the child on February 15, 2019 was contradicted by the wife’s own admission during cross-examination. The Court recorded that “the respondent-wife… admitted… that she did not go to her matrimonial house after December 15, 2018, which palpably belies the allegations.”
With respect to the allegation of illicit relationship and other accusations, the Court noted the absence of corroborative material. It recorded that “not a single corroborative evidence, either oral or documentary, was brought forward by the respondent to substantiate the allegations.” The Bench further observed that “none of the allegations made in the written statement could be substantiated by the respondent, nor any reasonable basis for making such allegations was made out.”
Relying on precedent, the Court stated that “reckless and defamatory/indecent allegations against one spouse by the other in pleadings and filing unsubstantiated complaints itself amounts to mental cruelty.” It concluded that the wife’s allegations caused mental agony and social stigma to the husband and recorded that “by making such serious allegations… the respondent-wife perpetrated mental cruelty by creating mental agony and social stigma to the appellant and his entire family.”
The Court also addressed the trial court’s reasoning that the husband had not filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. It stated that “there is no such requirement in law… as a pre-condition for grant of divorce.” The Bench further noted that the parties had remained separated for several years and recorded that “the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably.”
The Court directed: “F.A.T. No. 443 of 2023 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated December 6, 2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khatra, District-Bankura in Matrimonial Suit No. 07 of 2020 and decreeing the said suit, thereby granting dissolution of marriage between the parties by way of divorce. There will be no order as to costs. A formal decree be drawn up accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. D.K. Adhikari, Mr. Tarapada Das, Mr. Debdeep Adhikary
For the Respondents: Mr. Debrup Choudhury, Mr. Arkaprabho Roy
Case Title: XXX v. YYY
Case Number: F.A.T. No. 443 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
