The Calcutta High Court recently stated that if a wife chooses to sell property registered in her name without seeking her husband's consent, it will not be considered an act of cruelty.

A panel consisting of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas presided over a case in which a woman appealed against the trial court's ruling that granted her husband a divorce based on allegations of cruelty and desertion.

The Court remarked, "It seems that both parties are educated individuals, and if the wife chooses to sell property registered in her name without seeking approval or permission from her husband-respondent, it will not be considered an act of cruelty."

In 2014, the trial court ruled that there existed a presumption that the husband had provided the consideration for the purchased land, given that the wife had admittedly stated that she did not have any income of her own.

The High Court asserted that even if this fact is accepted as true, the property remained registered in the wife's name.

The Court emphasized, "The wife cannot be considered as the husband's property, nor is she obligated to seek any permission from the husband for any decision or action she chooses to take in her life."

The Court further clarified that if the husband has the ability to sell the property without requiring the wife's approval, then similarly, the property registered in the wife's name can be sold by her without needing his permission.

The Court strongly emphasized the need to eliminate the mindset of gender inequality and expressed that the trial court's ruling was unacceptable and untenable. Additionally, the Court noted that the dominance of men over women is not in accordance with the values of present-day society, and it was not an idea that the framers of the Constitution of India ever intended to promote.

The High Court dismissed the trial court's conclusion that the wife's withdrawal of money from the joint bank account held with her father-in-law after his death amounted to cruelty, describing it as a far-fetched and untenable interpretation.

The High Court suggested that the trial court should have viewed the situation from a different perspective. It pointed out that the act of the father-in-law placing trust in his daughter-in-law by opening a joint bank account with her contradicted the husband's allegations that the wife displayed indifference and engaged in quarrels within just 15 days of their marriage.

Furthermore, the High Court rejected the trial court's determination that the couple had been unhappy from the very beginning of their marriage.

The High Court clarified, "Within two years of marriage, the parties were blessed with a daughter, and therefore, it cannot be asserted that they were unhappy from the very beginning of their marriage."

In rejecting the allegation of desertion against the wife, the Court took note of the fact that the parties had been residing in the same house but in separate rooms.

The Court considered the wife's statement that she wanted to mend the relationship. Despite the absence of cohabitation since 2003, the evidence suggested that the husband had no intention of reuniting with the wife, according to the Court's findings.

The Court declared, "We find that the judgment and decree issued by the Trial Court cannot be upheld," as it proceeded to overturn the divorce decree in a case dating back to 2007.