In its recent judgment the division judge bench of the Calcutta High Court held that “the term ‘quarrel’, by its very definition, involves two parties. As such, fault cannot be attributed solely to one of the parties for an altercation or quarrel.”
The court in this case refused to grant divorce on the ground of cruelty by holding that quarrel doesn’t come within the ambit of "cruelty" as envisaged in law.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the husband/appellant filed the suit for divorce on the grounds of cruelty against the Respondent/wife. The said suit was dismissed. The appellant’s ground of cruelty was an undated undertaking signed by the respondent-wife and the husband contended that the same should be construed as an admission on the part of the respondent-wife regarding her cruelty.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant/Husband submitted that due to the cruel activities of the Respondent towards the appellant, his widow mother, and grandmother, the appellant got frightened and informed the local club and other well-wishers, after which the Respondent gave an undertaking in writing that she would be restrained from doing such “inhuman and cruel activities”.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that PW 2, neighbor of the parties consistently stated in the cross-examination that there were quarrels between the spouses, that is, the appellant and the respondent. The court furthermore observed that the term “quarrel”, by its very definition, involves two parties. As such, fault cannot be attributed solely to one of the parties for an altercation or quarrel.
The court noted that the only so-called corroborative evidence of the plaint case is no evidence of cruelty at all but might at best indicate the natural wear and tear of married life.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the appellant-husband is not entitled in law to divorce since the conduct of the respondent has not been proved to come within the ambit of "cruelty" as envisaged in law.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the divorce suit by the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge.
Case Title: Pankaj Mukherjee v. Rina Mukherjee nee Biswas
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Hon’ble Justice Uday Kumar
Case No.: F.A. No. 53 of 2020
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 3335 Cal/2
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Om PrakashDubey, Mr.Sailesh Kumar Gupta, Mr.Samrat Shil
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr.Abhra Mukherjee, Mr.Sauradeep Dutta, Mr.Arpayan Mukherjee, Mr. S. K. Mondal, Mr.Himadree Ghosh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com, click here
Picture Source :