Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar allowed an appeal against a decree of divorce, setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court that had granted divorce to the husband. The Court held that the respondent’s concealment of his two prior marriages amounted to foundational cruelty, which undermined the credibility of his claim. The Court directed that the husband's original matrimonial suit be dismissed, concluding that the Trial Court had misapplied the principles of cruelty and desertion in its findings.

The appellant, wife of the respondent, challenged the decree of divorce granted by the Learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Barrackpore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 912 of 2012. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on January 21, 2010, and registered on April 17, 2010. A male child was born to them on September 30, 2010.

Also Read: "No Individual Should Be Forcibly Subjected to Narco-Analysis": Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Directive, Affirms Voluntariness and Safeguards as Prerequisites

The respondent/husband alleged that shortly after the marriage, the appellant denied conjugal rights, used abusive language, and disrespected him and his elderly mother. He further accused her of refusing to perform household duties, prioritizing her profession as an advocate. Central to his claim of cruelty was an alleged false complaint lodged by the wife with his employer, which he claimed led to his job termination. He also cited repeated threats and multiple legal proceedings filed by the wife under Section 498A IPC, the Domestic Violence Act, and Section 125 Cr.P.C. He claimed these actions inflicted severe mental distress, prompting his plea for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The appellant/wife refuted all allegations, asserting that she was forcibly expelled from the matrimonial home while pregnant and was denied re-entry thereafter. She maintained that her legal actions were legitimate responses to the cruelty she endured, including dowry demands, physical assaults, and defamatory allegations. A key aspect of her defense was the suppression by the husband of his two previous marriages, substantiated through documentary evidence marked as Exhibits B and C.

Before the Trial Court, both parties presented oral and documentary evidence. The husband’s testimony restated his allegations and was supported by Exhibit 2, a letter from his employer referencing the wife’s complaint. The wife produced multiple documents, including Exhibits F, G, H, I, and J, evidencing her attempts at reconciliation, police complaints, and medical records.

Despite the evidence of prior marriages, the Trial Court found in favor of the husband, holding that the wife’s conduct in lodging complaints and allegedly causing job loss constituted cruelty. It also found her guilty of desertion, relying on the absence of conclusive proof of forced departure.

The Trial Court had concluded that the wife’s act of filing complaints at various forums amounted to cruelty. However, the High Court found this conclusion to be a misapplication of legal principles, particularly because it ignored the necessary elements of malice and falsity.

The Court also noted that the husband had deliberately concealed material facts about his marital history, and this suppression amounted to severe and inexcusable mental cruelty toward the wife. This act of deceit, according to the Court, undermined the core trust essential to a matrimonial relationship and had a serious impact on the wife's fundamental rights and well-being.

Although the wife had lodged a complaint that was followed closely by the husband's termination from his job, the Court observed that the evidence did not establish a direct correlation between the two events.

 It further recorded that the wife had made genuine efforts to resume cohabitation, as reflected in her approach to the Protection Officer and her initiation of related proceedings, which clearly indicated her intention to return to the matrimonial home.

The Court determined that the husband's intentional concealment at the very inception of the marriage significantly outweighed any allegations of cruelty made against the wife.

It found that the husband had not successfully established the legal grounds of cruelty and desertion with the rigor required for obtaining a divorce decree. Granting relief to the husband under such circumstances, the Court stated, would compromise the integrity of justice and potentially encourage dishonest conduct in matrimonial cases.

Also Read: Madras High Court Warns Against Indefinite Use Of LOC | Foreign National Not Named As Accused Can’t Be Held Back Without Timeline For Probe

The Court allowed the appeal bearing FAT 68 of 2020 on contest. It set aside the Judgment and Decree dated November 21, 2019, which had been passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Barrackpore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 912 of 2012 (C-905 of 2014). Consequently, the Matrimonial Suit filed by the respondent/husband stood dismissed.

 The Court directed that there would be no order as to costs. All interim orders, if any, were vacated, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

 It further directed that a formal decree be drawn up. A copy of the judgment along with the Lower Court Records was to be sent to the Learned Trial Court forthwith.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Supriya Ranjan Saha, Mr. S.K. Mukherjee

For the Respondents: Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee, Mr. Sunil Gupta, Ms. Shakshi Rathi, Ms. Swapna Jha, Mr. Shwetank S. Prasad, Mr. Bikash Kr. Singh, Ms. Katha Sarkar

Case Title: XXX vs. YYY

Case Number: FAT 68 of 2020

Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Justice Uday Kumar

[Read/Download order]