Back
Grants Divorce Due to Being Equivalent to
The , presided over by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, has granted a in a long-standing matrimonial dispute. The court ruled that when a marriage has broken down irretrievably, it constitutes a form of , allowing for its dissolution under the .
Decades of Separation
The appellant, Sri Sanjib Tarafdar, and the respondent, Smt. Mausumi Tarafdar, were married on . The couple separated in , just two months into their union. For nearly two decades, the parties lived apart with no attempt to reconcile. When the was initially dismissed by the trial court, the husband appealed, arguing that the relationship was essentially "deadwood."
Arguments and Legal Contentions
The appellant contended that the marriage was non-consummated and marred by the respondent's alleged psychiatric issues, although he conceded during cross-examination that he had failed to prove the lack of consummation or formal cruelty. Crucially, he argued that the total lack of (the desire to return) and the failed mediation sessions clearly demonstrated an .
Conversely, the respondent argued that she remained willing to resume married life, denying the allegations of an irreversible breakdown. She maintained that the evidence provided by the appellant regarding medical records was inadmissible and irrelevant.
Legal Analysis and Precedents
In its analysis, the High Court examined the legal impact of an . While noting that such a breakdown is not a standalone statutory ground for divorce under existing Indian law, the bench relied heavily on the precedent set in . The court noted that because the marriage had become bitter and acrimonious, maintaining the facade of a relationship serves only to inflict further cruelty on both parties.
Justice Bhattacharyya emphasized that, under , the legal principles established by the Supreme Court are binding. Given the absence of offspring and the nearly 19-year separation, the court held that the situation satisfied the threshold for cruelty under .
Key Observations
-
"A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty."
-
"The marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflict cruelty on both the sides."
-
"Sustaining such marriage and keeping the facade of the broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties."
Final Order
The set aside the trial court's dismissal, granting the . While the marriage has been dissolved, the court clarified that this decision does not restrict the respondent from pursuing a claim for under in the jurisdictional court. This ruling reinforces an evolving judicial trend toward recognizing the realities of dead marriages in the interest of justice.
