Kolkata: Allegations of cruelty for seeking divorce must be substantiated by some material evidencethe Calcutta High Court held on Dec 19 while rejecting a divorce decree to a man who moved court on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
“It has been repeatedly held by the courts that cruelty has many facets and may differ from person to person depending on the social context, economic strata of the parties to the marriage, and such other factors. Whatever may be the benchmark for assessing cruelty, there must be some incident of cruelty proved by the party alleging it, which in the present case is totally lacking,” the division bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held.
The husband’s counsel highlighted that the wife’s allegation against her husband of having extramarital affairs with other women lacked evidence and hence should not be considered cruelty. The wife, in her cross-examination, alleged the same and stated that she lodged a complaint of torture against her husband but had not proceeded with the case. The high court noted that a document with the husband’s signature had the name of the woman he was alleged to have had an extramarital relationship with.
The couple had got married in 2001 and had a son. In 2022, the lower court rejected the divorce appeal filed by the man. In his allegations, the husband had said that his wife had forced him to leave the house and that her brothers used to physically and mentally torture him.
The wife, however, claimed that it was the husband who moved out to a rented space while she continued to live in the matrimonial house. She further alleged that her husband had an extramarital affair, and hence, wanted to divorce her.
When the husband moved the division bench, it noted that the apex court in previous judgments on the issue of cruelty as a ground for dissolution of marriage held that there can be “no fixed comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.” What may be cruelty in one case may not amount to the same in another. It was further stated that cruelty differs from person to person depending on “upbringing, level of sensitivity, education, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs and tradition, etc.”
“…cruelty is required to be established both by pleading and proof so as to constitute a ground for dissolution of marriage/divorce,” the division bench of Calcutta HC stated.
The husband’s claim that the wife deserted him could also not be proven as he had no material to show that his wife left his company. As a “desperate attempt,” he tried to raise the contention of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which too was shot down by the HC stating it “has not been incorporated in the statute as a ground of divorce.”
“It has been repeatedly held by the courts that cruelty has many facets and may differ from person to person depending on the social context, economic strata of the parties to the marriage, and such other factors. Whatever may be the benchmark for assessing cruelty, there must be some incident of cruelty proved by the party alleging it, which in the present case is totally lacking,” the division bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held.
The husband’s counsel highlighted that the wife’s allegation against her husband of having extramarital affairs with other women lacked evidence and hence should not be considered cruelty. The wife, in her cross-examination, alleged the same and stated that she lodged a complaint of torture against her husband but had not proceeded with the case. The high court noted that a document with the husband’s signature had the name of the woman he was alleged to have had an extramarital relationship with.
The couple had got married in 2001 and had a son. In 2022, the lower court rejected the divorce appeal filed by the man. In his allegations, the husband had said that his wife had forced him to leave the house and that her brothers used to physically and mentally torture him.
The wife, however, claimed that it was the husband who moved out to a rented space while she continued to live in the matrimonial house. She further alleged that her husband had an extramarital affair, and hence, wanted to divorce her.
When the husband moved the division bench, it noted that the apex court in previous judgments on the issue of cruelty as a ground for dissolution of marriage held that there can be “no fixed comprehensive definition of mental cruelty.” What may be cruelty in one case may not amount to the same in another. It was further stated that cruelty differs from person to person depending on “upbringing, level of sensitivity, education, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs and tradition, etc.”
“…cruelty is required to be established both by pleading and proof so as to constitute a ground for dissolution of marriage/divorce,” the division bench of Calcutta HC stated.
The husband’s claim that the wife deserted him could also not be proven as he had no material to show that his wife left his company. As a “desperate attempt,” he tried to raise the contention of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which too was shot down by the HC stating it “has not been incorporated in the statute as a ground of divorce.”