Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench of Arindam Sinha and Suvra Ghosh, JJ. confirmed a decree of divorce passed in favour of the husband by the trial court on grounds of cruelty by the wife. The instant appeal, dismissed by the High Court, was preferred by the wife against the judgment of the trial court.

Backdrop and Factual Matrix

The husband filed for divorce against the wife on grounds of cruelty, alleging that she made false allegations against him of having illicit relations with other women as well as their own daughter. The trial court found that no cogent proof of illicit relationship was forthcoming from the wife which could prove the allegations made by her against the husband. Therefore, the trial court held it amounted to cruelty against the husband under Section 13(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.

Contentions ─ Wife

The wife argued that the allegation of cruelty was erroneously held to be proved against her. She submitted that the persons named were not produced as witness. Extreme financial hardship had prevented her from fully participating at the trial, but that by itself did not justify finding in the trial court’s judgment and decree that the allegation of cruelty was proved against her.

Contentions ─ Husband

The husband submitted that the suit was filed in year 2004. Dilatory tactics were adopted by the wife. He gave evidence and was cross-examined, which could not shake his evidence. Such unshaken testimony was corroborated by their daughter. The daughter was married and living happily in her matrimonial home. Grave and serious allegations against him were made regarding carrying on with several women, including, their daughter. This part of the evidence was also corroborated by the daughter. The daughter took to the witness box and corroborated unshaken testimony of the husband, and therefore the wife did not cross-examine her, nor turn up to give evidence and be cross-examined. In such circumstances, further corroboration was not required and the Court below correctly appreciated the evidence to find cruelty inflicted on him.

It was further submitted that he had allowed the wife to stay in his flat and is regularly paying her enhanced permanent alimony. Eighteen years of separation had happened and there should not now be reversal of the trial court’s judgment and decree. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in Adhyaatmam Bhaamini v. Jagdish Ambala Shah, (1997) 9 SCC 471.

Law, Analysis and Decision

The High Court analysed the facts and allegations in two parts. Firstly, the allegations were regarding the wife having taken up a 9 am to 9 pm job, after which she became very ill. The husband, in his evidence, stated that he put pressure on the wife to leave the job. On the other hand, the wife said that the husband forced her to work on a sales office to earn money to meet family expenses. On examining the record, it appeared to the High Court that the wife took up the job, after which she fell ill, and the husband caused her to leave the job. Therefore, the wife’s account on this point was disbelieved by the Court.

Secondly, the allegation against the wife was that in July-August 2003, she visited the husband’s office, informing the Committee of Housing about him maintaining illicit relationship with their daughter. As a consequence, members of the Committee came to their residence. The wife admitted that on one occasion, she went to her husband’s office, but only to meet him. She did not meet allegations regarding her approaching the Committee members.

The allegations of the husband against the wife, were corroborated by their daughter in her evidence-in-chief. Although some statements in her affidavit were hearsay. The Court opined that:

There are some statements in her affidavit-in-chief, which are hearsay. The parts of her affidavit that can be attributed to be her evidence is in corroboration of what her father said in the petition, his affidavit-in-chief and from the Box, in cross-examination.”    

 On a complete analysis, the High Court held that the wife made reckless allegations against the husband, amounting to cruelty. The Court was convinced that there is no scope of interference in the trial court’s judgment and decree. The appeal was fount without any merit and was therefore dismissed. [Radha Majumder v. Arun Kumar Majumder, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 1398, decided on 23-03-2021]


Advocates who appeared in this case:

Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy

Ms. Shraboni Sarkar … for appellant wife

Mr. Debabrata Acharyya

Mr. Sital Samanta … for respondent-husband

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: Shree Chandrashekhar, J., addressed an issue with regard to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.

In the present revision petition, maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been challenged.

Petitioner-Husband’s wife stated that her husband was irresponsible towards the conjugal relationship and neglected to maintain her. The matrimonial suit which was instituted by the husband seeking a divorce decree was disposed of on a compromise between the parties.

Petitioner’s counsel, Sanjay Prasad contended that the above-stated matrimonial suit was decreed “as per terms of the compromise” under which the wife had relinquished all her claims against the petitioner, hence petitioner’s wife was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

In the Supreme Court decision of Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma, (2014) 14 SCC 452, Court dealt with the issue of whether a wife who has agreed for permanent alimony and given up future claim for maintenance is entitled to maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 after the divorce?

To the above, the Supreme Court responded that

“The proceeding under Section 125 CrPC is summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife and any order passed under Section 125 CrPC by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Act.”

In the present matter, Family Court Judge had observed that permanent alimony or maintenance was not given by the petitioner and the wife was unable to maintain herself. Hence, the Court awarded Rs 5000 monthly maintenance to the wife.

Object of Section 125 CrPC is to ensure that a wife, minor children or helpless parents do not suffer in penury.

High Court declined to interfere in the present matter keeping in mind the limitation under revisional jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the criminal revision.[Umesh Prasad Mahto v. Puspa Devi, 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 645, decided on 06-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. allowed a challenge to the order passed by Additional District Judge whereby he allowed an amendment application filed by the husband in a matrimonial suit.

The husband filed the application for amending the plaint on the basis of two hand written declarations alleged to be written by the wife. The wife contended that no such declaration was executed by her. However, the Additional District Judge allowed the application holding that the suit for dissolution of marriage was filed by the husband on grounds of mental cruelty and the amendment sought to be made was only an elaboration of facts of mental cruelty perpetrated upon the plaintiff by his wife. Aggrieved thus, the wife challenged the said order.

The High Court was of the view that the order impugned could not be sustained. It was observed that the amendment application of the husband did not disclose the said self-written declarations allegedly executed by the wife. Furthermore, it was not even the case of the husband that the facts sought to be incorporated by him in the plaint were necessary for elaboration of the ground for divorce. The Court held that the Additional District Judge committed an patent illegality in passing the order impugned, and hence it was set aside. [Dyutimala Chatterjee nee Bagchi v. Subhrajit Chatterjee,  2018 SCC OnLine Cal 6152, dated 07-09-2018]