The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday comprising of a bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Suvra Ghosh observed that the term “cruelty” does not include petty disputes and differences which are part and parcel of married life. (Chiranjib Bag v. Suchandra Bag)
Facts of the Case
The respondent is the wife of the appellant by virtue of marriage solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs on 10-08-2009. Disputes and differences cropped up between the parties which led the appellant/ husband to file a suit praying for decree of divorce under section 13(i) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Learned Additional District Judge, Durgapur.
The respondent has been receiving interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the appellant by virtue of an order granted by the Trial Court. The respondent is ready and willing to reconcile with the appellant and lead a peaceful marital life with him. She prayed for dismissal of the suit. Upon taking evidence of the parties and considering the entire material on record, the learned trial court, by judgment impugned, dismissed the suit on contest.
Being aggrieved by such dismissal, the appellant(Husband) has come up before this court in appeal, praying for a decree of divorce in his favour.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not intend to press the grounds of adultery and desertion and shall confine his argument to the ground of cruelty.
At the outset, it has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant that though the respondent filed a proceeding praying for maintenance, she did not approach the court for restitution of conjugal rights which indicates that she has no intention of resuming marital life. Referring to the averment of the respondent in her written statement as well as her evidence before the learned trial court, learned counsel has submitted that the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty thrust upon the appellant are out and out false and the allegation of the respondent with regard to sexual incapability of the appellant amounts to mental cruelty. The allegations made out against the appellant by the respondent are baseless, false and fabricated. In support of his contention, the appellant has placed reliance upon the authority in Smt. Santana Banerjee v/s. Sachindra Nath Banerjee reported in AIR 1990 CAL 367 and Amarendranath Sannyal v/s. Krishna Sannyal reported in (1993) 1 CHN 213.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/wife has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that the respondent was driven out of her matrimonial home by the appellant and his family members and was constrained to stay in her parental home. Several false allegations have been made against the respondent by the appellant who refused to accept her when she returned to her matrimonial home. The respondent is ready and willing to reunite with her husband and has also not taken any coercive step against him despite being subjected to cruelty and being deprived of marital life. The Learned Counsel also referred to a decision of a coordinate bench of this court in Suparna Dalui v/s. Bidhan Mondal reported in 2016 (5) CHN (CAL) 429.
Courts Observation & Judgment
After taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Court held,
"Allegation of cruelty has not been substantiated by cogent evidence and even if it is held that there were certain differences between the couple, the definition of cruelty cannot be stretched to such an extent as to include such petty disputes and differences which are part and parcel of a normal married life."
The Court also expressed its concern over the comments made by the husband to prove that he was the victim of 'cruelty' by the wife.
"In the case in hand, it was the appellant who filed the suit for divorce on a vague allegation of cruelty which was neither explained, nor elaborated. It was the appellant who went to the extent of assassinating the character, morality and sexual capability of the respondent. If this is not cruelty, then what it is?"
The Court found that the husband could not substantiate the allegations of cruelty of the part of the wife. On the issue of resuming conjugal ties, the Court observed,
"The appellant has very clearly stated that he is not willing to lead a conjugal life with the respondent. The appellant’s father who adduced evidence before the learned trial court has also stated that he does not want the appellant to live with the respondent. Therefore it is crystal clear that despite all efforts by the respondent to return to her matrimonial home and resume conjugal life with the appellant, she was not accepted by the appellant and his family and was compelled to return to her parental home.
Merely because the respondent did not formally pray for restitution of conjugal rights before a court of law, under no stretch of imagination can it be inferred that she had no intention of resuming conjugal life with the appellant."
The Court accordingly upheld the order of the family court and dismissed the suit filed by the husband.
"Upon consideration of the entire material on record, we are left with no alternative but to come to the conclusion that the appellant has miserably failed to prove his case and there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned that calls for inference by this court."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
