The Calcutta High Court has granted a divorce decree to a husband, citing mental cruelty inflicted by his wife.

The division bench, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar, overturned a trial court’s judgment that had refused the husband’s plea, deeming it "perverse and erroneous."

In its December 19 judgment, the bench found that the husband's claims of mental cruelty were sufficiently substantiated. These included the wife imposing her friend and family on the husband despite his objections and filing a false case of matrimonial cruelty against him.

The court noted that the presence of the wife’s friend and relatives in the husband's official residential quarters in Kolaghat, East Midnapore district, caused him significant discomfort. The bench concluded that these actions justified the grant of divorce, thereby dissolving the marriage.

"Such imposition of friend and family of the respondent on the husband at his quarter against his will, sometimes even when the respondent-wife herself was not there, over a continuous period of time, can definitely be constituted as cruelty, since it might very well have made life impossible for the appellant, which would come within the broader purview of cruelty," the bench observed.

The court noted that the wife in this case had unilaterally decided to refuse conjugal relations with her husband for an extended period, resulting in a prolonged separation that clearly indicated the irreparable nature of their matrimonial bond. 

The husband's counsel argued that the wife spent most of her family time with a female friend, which, according to him, amounted to cruelty.

The couple had married on December 15, 2005.

On September 25, 2008, the husband filed for divorce, and on October 27 of the same year, the wife sent a complaint via registered post to the Nabadwip police station, which was within the jurisdiction of the husband's paternal residence.

A criminal proceeding was initiated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the wife’s complaint.

The husband's lawyer presented the judgment of the criminal court, which acquitted him and his family members of the charges filed by the wife. He argued that this acquittal, along with the timing of the complaint, demonstrated that the allegations were entirely false.

It was further contended that such unfounded harassment amounted to cruelty.

In response, the wife's lawyer argued that the husband failed to prove his case of cruelty, and therefore, the trial court’s dismissal of the divorce suit was justified.

The court observed that the wife had been residing at her official quarters in Narkeldanga, Kolkata, from May 2008, while the husband stayed in Kolaghat, East Midnapore. It noted that the wife’s deliberate refusal to return to conjugal life amounted to cruelty.

The division bench highlighted that the wife had not raised any complaints during the marriage and had lived with the husband for three years, from 2005 to 2008, without expressing any grievances. Additionally, the fact that the wife’s mother and friend stayed in the Kolaghat quarters even in her absence suggested that the allegations made against the husband later were mere afterthoughts.

"It is quite evident that the bald allegations made in the complaint by the wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, without any particulars, details or even mention of the specific acts or dates of cruelty, were completely baseless and unsubstantiated," the bench said.