False Cases By Wife Leading To Husband's Arrest, 17-Year Separation Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya dismissed an appeal filed by the wife challenging the husband's divorce decree. The Trial Court had granted a divorce on the ground of cruelty, while also taking note of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
The Division Bench upheld these findings after examining the evidence led by both sides, the wife's conduct before and after the institution of the suit, the criminal proceedings initiated by her, and the prolonged separation of nearly 17 years.
The Court noted that the parties married on April 27, 2005 and had a son in 2007. The wife left the matrimonial home on November 2, 2009. The husband filed the divorce suit in January 2010, and the wife lodged a criminal case one month later, alleging assault and an attempt to set her and her son on fire.
The Bench held that the timing of the wife's complaint, coupled with a three-month delay from the alleged incident, indicated that the complaint was a retaliatory response to the divorce suit. Significantly, all criminal cases filed by the wife ended in acquittal for lack of evidence, with the wife remaining the sole supporting witness.
The husband's evidence, supported by his elder brother (examined as PW-2), detailed persistent quarrels, abusive conduct, and reckless allegations by the wife, including accusations of the husband's illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. The Bench rejected the wife's argument that PW-2 was an “interested witness,” holding that a family member living in the shared household was best placed to speak to events inside the home. In contrast, the wife's own mother (DW-3) admitted in cross-examination that her daughter was “stubborn and adamant”, accustomed to imposing her will on others, and had indeed levelled allegations regarding the husband's character and supposed affair. These admissions, the Court held, substantially corroborated the husband's case.
The Court found that the serious allegations made by the wife were wholly unsubstantiated and amounted, by themselves, to mental cruelty. The wife's statement that the husband attempted to set her and the child on fire was found to have no corroboration; notably, no injuries were detected during her hospitalisation, and the child was not taken to the hospital with her despite her allegation that both were attacked. The Bench also recorded that the wife's father admitted to being a politically influential local leader, which explained how complaints were lodged and arrests made without substantive basis. The husband was arrested from outside his workplace and detained for nine hours based on another baseless complaint, which added to the cruelty inflicted upon him.
On the question of contradictions pointed out by the wife—such as whether marital disputes began at the inception of marriage or after 1½ years—the Court held that “difference of opinion” and “marital dispute” were qualitatively distinct, and the statements were not inconsistent. The evidence led by the wife's own witnesses, the Court said, ultimately strengthened the husband's case and justified the Trial Court's conclusion.
Turning to the issue of irretrievable breakdown, the Bench observed that the parties had been separated since November 2009 and that the wife had shown no “animus revertendi”—no intention to resume matrimonial life—at any time thereafter. The son, now an adult, could not serve as a factor for reconciliation. The marriage had “spent its shelf-life long back.”
Importantly, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) 17 SCC 433, which held that although irretrievable breakdown is not independently a statutory ground for divorce, it constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Division Bench reaffirmed that this principle is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution, rejecting the wife's argument that irretrievable breakdown is not a valid basis for divorce.
On the issue of permanent alimony, the Court noted the wife's submissions that the Trial Court had not granted maintenance despite Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowering the court to do so at the time of dissolution. (The final part of the judgment, which was not included in the excerpt, would address whether permanent alimony should be awarded; based on the available text, this reasoning is pending.)
Ultimately, the High Court held that the cumulative conduct of the wife—habitual quarrels, reckless and grave allegations against the husband's character, lodging false criminal cases, causing his arrest and humiliation, and the long, unexplained withdrawal from cohabitation—constituted mental cruelty, fully justifying the decree of divorce. The appeal was dismissed.
Case: SARANJIT KAUR (HURA) -versus- INDER SINGH HURA
Case No: FA No.185 of 2022