Collective Duty Of Husband & Wife To Wither Trivial Issues, Respect Each Other's Decisions & Create Congenial Atmosphere: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has allowed an appeal, dismissing an application for dissolution of marriage while holding that in matrimonial life it is the collective duty of a couple to create a congenial atmosphere.

A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad held that the Constitution recognises equality in gender and both partners must show mutual respect to each others' decision as it is the hallmark of society.

It said: It is a collective duty of both husband and wife to wither the trivial issues which are normal in a matrimonial life and mutual respect to the decision of each other appears to be the hallmark of the society. Even the Constitution recognises equality in gender and, therefore, the husband to be put on higher degree than that of the wife is unacceptable. The Judge appears to be swayed by the emotions and inappropriate appreciation of the facts.

The Court was dealing with a challenge against the order of the trial court by the wife, who challenged the grant of dissolution of marriage and dismissed the application for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("HMA").

It was alleged by the husband that the wife has perpetrated cruelty upon him and therefore he filed an application under Section 13(1)(a) of the HMA for the marriage to be dissolved.

The husband made various allegations against the wife, stating that she insulted him, beat him, was aggressive in her conduct, tortured him into falling down the stairs, and tried to burn his mother.

The wife denied all allegations and stated that she was always treated with cruelty by her mother-in-law and that she was subjected to a fertility test, but wished to stay with the husband who had deserted her without any reason.

The Bench found that the trial court judge had wrongfully shifted the onus on the wife in disproving the evidence of the husband. 

It was noted that the husband had failed to prove the offence of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) and the trial judge had not considered the same while granting the decree for dissolution of marriage.

Court stated that although cruelty had not been defined in the Act, it was a ground for the dissolution of marriage.

It engulfs within itself not only physical but mental cruelty as well and the decision in this regard rendered by the courts of the country are uniformed that the cruelty must be of such magnitude that it would cause danger to the life, limb or health both bodily or mentally inculcating a sense in the mind of a person a reasonable apprehension of danger in this regard, it said.

It was held that the normal wear and tear of marital life and dissent in views could not be termed as cruelty and that the moment the case is founded upon mental cruelty, it must be judged on the parameter of treatment, impact, and apprehension of danger to life or health.

Court held that in this case, the rule of evidence postulates that the onus initially lies upon the person who initiated the proceedings before the Court to prove the incidents of cruelty in proceedings for dissolution of marriage.

It was held that the trial judge's conclusion that the incident pleaded in the plaint which was not proved by the husband would be conclusive in the absence of cross-examination was incorrect.

The Bench found that the fallacy in the judgement of the trial court stemmed from the fact that although the judge had held that the husband had failed to prove the allegations by not placing the contents of the general diary on record, had gone on to grant the decree of divorce merely because the wife had failed to cross-examine the husband on the statement made in the deposition. 

The Court also stated that the findings of the trial court that the woman had filed a case against her husband and his family and that she had subjected them to cruelty, were incorrect.

Court finally emphasised the observation of the trial court judge that in a happy marriage, the wife provides the climate and husband the landscape was an archaic notion which has gradually eroded with the advancement of society.

It was held that in the present case, the trial court judge was swayed by emotions and inappropriate appreciation of facts, and therefore the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dissolution of the marriage.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 75

Case No: FAT 181 of 2018