Calcutta High Court: An appeal was filed by the husband (appellant) challenging the ex parte dismissal of his suit for divorce, which was grounded on allegations of cruelty and desertion by the wife. A division bench of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ., allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband on grounds of cruelty.
The husband filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion. The core factual allegations included repeated insults and public humiliation meted out by the wife (respondent), alongside her attempts to poison the mind of their son against the husband. The husband specifically alleged that the wife had willfully withdrawn from the matrimonial relationship since June 2012 and had only made rare, brief appearances thereafter.
A significant incident cited in the plaint pertained to the husband’s mother suffering a cerebral attack on 14-09-2014, during which the wife is said to have visited only briefly. Following her discharge, the mother was shifted to the husband’s maternal uncle’s house due to the absence of caretakers. Despite being informed of the mother’s deteriorating health, the wife merely responded through a text message dated 20-10-2014. The mother passed away on 21-04-2014, and although the wife attended the Sradh ceremony, she allegedly resumed her non-cooperative stance thereafter. The wife reportedly returned briefly on 23-11-2014, only to leave permanently with her belongings. These facts were pleaded in the plaint and supported by the husband’s evidence, which remained uncontroverted due to the absence of any evidence or cross-examination from the wife.
The husband, through his pleadings and unchallenged oral testimony, outlined a series of events that constituted mental cruelty, including public disparagement and a complete withdrawal from matrimonial duties. The suit proceeded ex parte as the wife, despite filing a written statement, chose neither to adduce evidence nor to cross-examine the husband. The Trial Judge, however, dismissed the suit without any legal evaluation of evidence.
The Court noted with dismay the complete disconnect between the Trial Judge’s reasoning and the evidence on record. The Court remarked that Trial Court Judge had ventured into unrelated, conjectural narratives, frequently invoking what can be described as “wishful and delirious fiction.” The Trial Court had attributed various motivations and attitudes to the parties, often extending beyond the pleadings. It referred to the husband’s “lustful attitude” and “incorrigible” conduct, despite there being no such allegation or evidence even from the wife. Further, the Trial Judge adopted a patriarchal tone, suggesting it was the husband’s duty to “pacify the rage and anger” of his wife, implying that he should have tolerated cruelty to maintain the marriage.
The language employed by the Trial Judge, terms such as “feministic instinct,” “erotic passion,” “cognitive dissonance,” and bizarre aphorisms about marriage were found to be not only irrelevant but also reflective of a troubling pattern. The Court noted that it had encountered similar verbose, florid, and almost identical judgments from the same Trial Judge in other matrimonial cases, suggesting a mechanical and prejudicial approach devoid of judicial application of mind. The observations were so tangential that the Court observed they might shame even a fiction writer of note.
The Court was especially critical of the Judge’s unilateral formulation of “auspicious principles” for marriage such as the need for “transcendental efforts” and “austerity of the spouse” which bore no relevance to the factual matrix of the case. These principles, constructed out of thin air, were held to be nothing more than literary digressions.
The Court emphasized the correct legal position that in matrimonial disputes, the Courts must evaluate the conduct of the parties based strictly on the evidence presented. The Trial Court failed to discharge this fundamental judicial duty and instead strayed into subjective narratives not supported by the record. The Court underlined that cruelty ‘mental or physical’ must be assessed objectively, and where the evidence remains uncontroverted, as in the present case, the allegations must be adjudicated based on prima facie material.
In the present matter, the husband’s evidence remained uncontested, and his allegations were consistent, detailed, and supported by specific instances of the wife’s withdrawal from cohabitation and neglect of family responsibilities. There was no rebuttal or cross-examination to dislodge the husband’s case. The Court also observed that the Trial Court injected imagined allegations into the record and created its own factual framework, thereby committing a grave miscarriage of justice.
The Court held that the Trial Court had entirely failed to consider the pleadings and uncontroverted evidence and instead indulged in unwarranted literary exposition. The Court found that the husband had sufficiently made out a case for divorce on the grounds of cruelty.
[Abhijit Mitra v. Dipa Mitra, FAT 264 of 2022, decided on 22-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty, Mr. Shivaji Mitra
