Calcutta High Court: In an appeal filed by the appellant (wife) challenging the judgment and decree dated 21-11-2019 and 18-12-2019, issued by the Additional District Judge in a matrimonial suit wherein the marriage was dissolved between the parties by divorce, the Division Bench of Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ. set aside the decree of divorce and held that divorce decree cannot be granted to a party (petitioner) who perpetrated foundational cruelty (e.g., deliberate marital deception) of greater magnitude than any alleged misconduct by the other spouse, even if the marriage is irretrievably broken down, as it would constitute a miscarriage of justice and violate the principle of “clean hands”.
The marriage was solemnised at Dakshineswar Maa Kali Temple on 21-01-2010 and registered on 17-04-2010. A male child was born to them on 30-09-2010. The couple began residing at the husband’s residence in Agarpara, but marital discord arose within six months, culminating in the wife’s departure on 14-07-2010. This triggered a series of litigations between the parties. The husband initiated a matrimonial suit before the Barrackpore court seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion. The Trial Court decreed the suit, accepting the husband’s claims that the wife filed false complaints under Section 498A IPC, damaged his career by writing to his employer, and deserted him without cause.
The husband’s primary grievance stemmed from the wife’s lodging of criminal complaints and alleged refusal to fulfill conjugal obligations. He accused her of prioritising her legal career over marital responsibilities, using abusive language, and threatening false cases. According to him, her complaint to his employer resulted in his job termination, an act that he characterised as mental cruelty.
In rebuttal, the wife asserted that the husband’s suit was a retaliatory move against her legitimate pursuit of justice under criminal and domestic violence laws. Crucially, she revealed that he had concealed two prior marriages, one that ended in compromise following a Section 498A complaint, and the other by ex parte divorce. These claims were backed by certified Court Records along with her own experience of physical and emotional abuse and stated that she was forced out of her matrimonial home during pregnancy.
The primary issue before the Court was whether the Trial Court had rightly concluded that the wife had subjected the husband to cruelty and deserted him without cause. A closer judicial scrutiny revealed that while the Trial Court had accepted the husband’s allegations at face value, particularly that the wife had made complaints leading to his dismissal from employment, it failed to assess the evidentiary basis and intent behind those allegations. The Court emphasized that for acts to constitute mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, they must be proved to be false, malicious, and of a nature likely to cause harm. The mere institution of complaints, especially in a domestic context where grievances may be genuine, does not automatically amount to cruelty unless shown to be unfounded and motivated.
Furthermore, the Court turned its lens on the conduct of the husband, noting that he had failed to disclose two prior marriages and a pending criminal case at the time of solemnizing the current marriage. This concealment, which went undisputed on record, constituted an egregious breach of trust and amounted to mental cruelty in its own right. The Trial Court, in its analysis, overlooked this critical aspect, thereby ignoring the principle that cruelty must be viewed in the context of the entire matrimonial relationship, including the conduct of both parties.
On the issue of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b), the High Court found that the wife’s separation was not willful but rather a consequence of circumstances, including her pregnancy and the husband’s refusal to allow her re-entry into the matrimonial home. The Court relied on established jurisprudence recognizing “constructive desertion” where one party is forced to live apart due to the conduct of the other and held that the husband’s act of denying the wife access to the marital home negated any claim of desertion on her part. This undermined the Trial Court’s finding that the wife had deserted the husband without cause.
Addressing the plea of irretrievable breakdown, the Court acknowledged the parties had been living separately for over 14 years. Nonetheless, it cautioned against allowing divorce solely on this ground, especially when the party seeking divorce is at fault. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that such a ground, while relevant, is not statutorily recognized and cannot override the principle that relief in matrimonial matters must be denied to a party with “unclean hands.” The husband’s suppression of material facts and unjustified conduct weighed heavily against him.
Thus, the Court set aside the divorce decree, holding that granting a divorce in these circumstances would result in a grave miscarriage of justice.
[Kamalika Majumdar Nee Das v. Subhapriya Majumdar, FAT 68 of 2020, decided on 11-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Supriya Ranjan Saha, Mr. S.K. Mukherjee
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee, Mr. Sunil Gupta Ms. Shakshi Rathi, Ms. Swapna Jha, Mr. Shwetank S. Prasad, Mr. Bikash Kr. Singh, Ms. Kat
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
