The Calcutta High Court affirmed the Trial Court's decision to grant a divorce, ending the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Additionally, the Court declined to intervene in the case of the petition filed under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which sought custody of their child. Moreover, the Court dismissed this custody petition and ordered the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000 to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee.

A bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury rendered the following verdict based on their observations. They determined that the appellant, (husband), exhibited characteristics of extreme patriarchal behavior, insensitivity, and a profound lack of respect, love, and compassion towards his wife. His actions strongly suggested an intent to disregard the marital vows he had made. The appellant's decision to live separately within the same household, effectively isolating himself from his wife and child, was regarded as a clear demonstration of his apathy towards their well-being. The court noted a complete absence of affection and emphasized that compelling the respondent, the wife, to live with the appellant would pose significant risks to her mental and physical health. The court, relying on the unchallenged testimony of the wife, also highlighted the cruel and unsupportive nature of the husband, who failed to accord her the dignity she rightfully deserved.

In the current case, the marriage between the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) was officially conducted on February 18, 2005, in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act, following all the customary rites and rituals. It was only after the marriage had taken place that the wife became aware of certain significant facts about her husband. Specifically, she learned that her husband was afflicted by acute asthma and was also struggling with alcohol addiction.

According to the wife's statements, her husband subjected her to ill-treatment and displayed inappropriate behavior. Over time, the situation deteriorated, with the husband resorting to both verbal and physical abuse. The wife recounted numerous instances where, instead of receiving support, she faced restrictions in pursuing her own aspirations. Furthermore, she reported that her in-laws also mistreated her, and her husband failed to provide emotional or financial support during her pregnancy. In a particularly distressing incident, he refused to contribute financially to correct their child's cleft lip through surgery.

In light of the uncontested testimonies presented by the wife, the bench reached the unequivocal conclusion that the husband became displeased when his wife secured various job opportunities. It was revealed that she was even compelled to deposit her entire salary into a joint account, indicating a lack of financial autonomy. The bench considered this continuous pattern of abuse and humiliation by the husband as a form of cruelty. The wife, referred to as P.W. 1, expressed her desire to maintain the marriage, but she was ultimately compelled to leave her marital home due to her inability to endure the physical and mental torture inflicted upon her by her husband.

The bench also made an important observation regarding the concept of cruelty. It noted that there is no specific statutory definition of cruelty, which provides the court with significant discretion in its interpretation and application. What constitutes cruelty can vary greatly from one case to another, as it depends on various factors, including the upbringing, education, social background, lifestyle, temperament, and emotional conditioning of the parties involved. In essence, what may be considered as cruelty in one context may not necessarily be viewed the same way in another, due to the diverse circumstances and perspectives of the individuals involved.

According to the bench, the husband's deliberate action of distancing himself from his wife by relocating to the upper tier of their duplex home while the wife and child resided in the lower tier was a clear and unmistakable indication of his intent to effectively terminate the marriage. The bench expressed the belief that there was substantial reason to presume that the husband, who was the opposing party in the original petition, had the intent to desert his wife, and this intention subsequently led to his assaulting her and forcing her out of their home, along with their child.

In the context of refusing custody of the child to the husband, the bench made the following observation: Despite the husband's failure to provide maintenance for his minor son and his inability to substantiate his claim of regular payments through the submission of an affidavit, it is evident that he has displayed a lack of concern for the child. Therefore, the husband is deemed unsuitable to have custody of the child. Prioritizing the paramount welfare of the child, the bench found no valid reason to overturn the decision made by the learned Trial Court, which had rejected the appellant's petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act.