The Calcutta High Court's recent decision upheld the trial court's ruling, denying the husband's appeal seeking marriage dissolution and confirming a decree of judicial separation. The husband's claims of'mental cruelty' against his wife, including accusations of disparaging his mother's mental health, mistreating his in-laws, and leaving him with their daughter, were considered in the court's dismissal of his plea.

Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad, constituting a division bench, highlighted the absence of substantiated evidence regarding mental illness in the trial. The court emphasized that unsupported accusations alone couldn't constitute grounds for mental cruelty. Furthermore, the absence of objections from the husband regarding the wife residing with her parents before filing the suit was noted as lacking evidence in the case.

"We take judicial notice of the fact that family members of a large number of people suffering from mental illness are averse to accepting the existence of mental illness, nurturing a baseless fear of social stigma. Such misplaced common notions cannot be accepted by the Court to hold that an allegation of mental illness of the petitioner's or appellant’s mother per se would constitute an act of mental cruelty. Mere failure to prove the allegation of mental illness, cannot be considered as an act of mental cruelty," said the division bench while referring to the Apex Court's ruling in Ramchander vs. Ananta (2015).

The husband argued that the wife began misbehaving shortly after their 1998 marriage, frequently leaving without consent. Allegations included the use of vulgar language and neglect of his parents.

The wife purportedly left the husband in 2003, taking their child and personal belongings. Subsequently, in 2009, the husband initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

The wife countered, citing accommodation issues at the matrimonial home and the need to care for their daughter. She asserted that staying with her parents was due to job-related convenience and childcare responsibilities. She clarified that she would return to the matrimonial home during vacations or festive occasions.

The court noted the absence of concrete evidence supporting the husband's assertions, highlighting that mere allegations within a divorce petition lacked substantiation. It emphasized that the claimed accusation of mental illness remained unproven and therefore couldn't be deemed to constitute cruelty.

Additionally, the court found no substantiated evidence supporting allegations of physical cruelty and highlighted the lack of proof for the desertion claim. It questioned the husband's delay in approaching the court, noting that the gap between the alleged desertion in 2003 and the filing of the case in 2009 appeared unnatural and raised doubts about the timeline presented.

As a result, the appeal was rejected, and the trial court's decision for judicial separation was upheld, considering that the presented grounds for cruelty or desertion were not substantiated or established.