Wife's Insistence On Separating Husband From Dependent Widowed Mother Amounts To Cruelty: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a wife's insistence that her husband sever ties with his dependent widowed mother and live separately amounted to mental cruelty in the facts of the case, particularly as the wife's justification for seeking separate residence was based on an allegation of molestation of the parties' minor son which remained wholly unsubstantiated.

A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya observed that while a demand for separate residence cannot, by itself, be treated as cruelty, the wife's conduct has to be assessed in the context of the circumstances of the particular marriage.

The Court was dealing with an appeal against a divorce decree granted to the husband on the ground of cruelty.

The Bench noted that the husband's widowed mother was dependent on him and that the wife did not dispute this. The wife sought separate residence alleging that the mother-in-law had subjected their minor son to molestation and improper behaviour.

However, the Court found that there was no contemporaneous complaint, independent evidence, medical evidence or approach to any child welfare authority regarding the allegation.

“If the conduct of the respondent's mother was such that it was no longer possible for the appellant-wife to live with her son with her for a moment more,” the Court observed, “it is surprising that the appellant-wife, although otherwise having lodged police complaints on different occasions, kept completely silent” about the alleged conduct.

The Court held that the allegation being completely unsubstantiated, the very premise for seeking separate residence lost relevance.

“Separate living for its own sake has its place but cannot be isolated from the family background of the spouses,” the Bench said, adding that in the present case, separation from a dependent widowed mother, on the basis of such an unsubstantiated allegation, amounted to cruelty.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Narendra v. K. Meena, while clarifying that the observations in that case were not absolute and had to be applied in the factual context of each case.

The Bench also found that the wife had made several other serious allegations against the husband, including allegations concerning misappropriation of her parental property, dowry demands and retention of her ornaments, which were either unsupported or contradicted by her own evidence.

The Court further noted that the wife had alleged assault by the husband in a criminal case under Section 324 IPC, in which the husband was subsequently acquitted for want of sufficient evidence and medical evidence.

Considering the conduct of the parties cumulatively, the Court concluded that the wife had subjected the husband to mental cruelty.

The Bench also held that the parties had remained separated for about 11 years and that court-referred mediation had failed. Relying on Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, it held that the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, coupled with the cruelty established on the facts, furnished a ground for divorce.

The Court rejected the wife's contention that her intermittent stays with the husband after separation amounted to condonation of cruelty, holding that such stray instances of cohabitation could not, in the circumstances, amount to condonation.

The Court also dismissed the wife's application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to introduce a medical prescription concerning an alleged forced termination of pregnancy. It held that she had failed to explain why the document, which was in her possession, was not produced during the trial. In any event, the prescription by itself could not establish that the termination was forced at the husband's instance.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the divorce decree affirmed. The Court clarified that the wife would not be precluded from applying for permanent alimony before the jurisdictional court.

Case: X v Y

Case No: F.A.T. No. 100 of 2022 with CAN 5 of 2026