Back
False Cases, Arrests, and a 17-Year Rift: Calcutta HC Seals Fate of Strained Marriage
In a significant ruling on matrimonial discord, the 's Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya dismissed an appeal by Saranjit Kaur Hura against her husband Inder Singh Hura's divorce decree. The court upheld the trial court's decision granting divorce on grounds of mental cruelty under , factoring in both pre- and post-suit conduct, including false criminal complaints that led to the husband's arrest and a 17-year separation signaling irretrievable breakdown.
This echoes recent media coverage highlighting how
"false cases by wife leading to husband's arrest"
constituted cruelty, as the bench meticulously dissected evidence from the trial court in Asansol.
From Wedding Bliss to Bitter Fallout: The Couple's Turbulent Journey
Saranjit Kaur (44) and Inder Singh Hura (47), married on April 27, 2005, per Sikh rites, welcomed a son on April 26, 2007. Cracks appeared early, with the husband alleging the wife's stubbornness, abusive behavior toward him and his family, demands for a separate home, and baseless character smears—including claims of adultery with his sister-in-law.
Tensions peaked on November 2, 2009, when the wife left the matrimonial home, accusing the husband and family of assault and attempted arson on her and the child. The husband filed for divorce on January 15, 2010 (Matrimonial Suit No.40 of 2011). Just weeks later, on February 5, 2010, the wife lodged an FIR under (Asansol PS Case No.31/2010), followed by another in 2017 under (Case No.15/2017). The husband was acquitted in both—swiftly in 2010 for lack of evidence, and in 2019—after enduring an arrest and 9-hour detention outside his workplace.
The couple has lived apart since 2009, with no conjugal relations or reconciliation attempts. The son, now an adult, was unilaterally sent to a boarding school in Mussoorie without the father's input.
He Said, She Said: Clash of Narratives in Court
Wife's Defense (Appellant): Saranjit argued the husband failed to prove cruelty, citing lack of independent witnesses (only his brother testified), vague allegations without dates, and contradictions in his evidence—like when disputes began. She highlighted her swift criminal complaint post-departure and dismissed acquittals as irrelevant, since civil and criminal standards differ. No police complaints by husband, plus her age and child, made remarriage impossible. Irretrievable breakdown isn't a standalone ground under Hindu law, she contended, citing Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur (2010) 14 SCC 301.
Husband's Counter (Respondent): Inder pointed to the wife's ill-treatment from day one—abuse, non-cooperation, denying son access, and false cases as retaliation. The 498A timing (post-divorce filing) and acquittals proved falsity, causing harassment and mental agony. Hospitalization claims were debunked (no injuries found), allegedly leveraged via her father's political clout. Her mother's testimony corroborated character attacks. Long separation (17 years) screamed irretrievable breakdown, per Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) 17 SCC 433.
Dissecting Cruelty: Pre-Suit Tantrums and Post-Suit Traps
The bench framed three issues: mental cruelty proof, irretrievable breakdown's validity, and alimony. On
pre-suit cruelty
, it credited the husband's testimony and brother's corroboration over the wife's, noting her mother's admissions of the wife's adamance and grave allegations (characterless husband, illicit relations). Such
"baseless assassination of the husband’s character"
inflicted mental cruelty.
Post-suit cruelty stemmed from false cases: acquittals weren't mere "beyond reasonable doubt" failures but total evidentiary voids, distinguishing Chiranjeevi v. Smt. Lavanya (2006 SCC OnLine AP 228). Citing Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani (2020) 18 SCC 247, the court held acquittals after trial prove cruelty via harassment. The bench invoked Rakesh Raman to fold 17-year separation into cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia), rejecting older precedents like Mihir Sarkar v. Soma Roy (2006) 3 Gau LR 655 as outdated.
No alimony was ordered sans application under , unlike Supreme Court interventions under in Rakhi Sadhukhan and M.V. Leelavathi .
Court's Sharp Words: Quotes That Cut Deep
"The consistent efforts of the appellant-wife and her family was to malign the husband and his family by lodging one false complaint after the other, even after institution of the suit, thereby creating mental agony and loss of face in Society."
"Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, although by itself not a ground of divorce, comes within the ambit of cruelty and, as such, is a valid ground under ."
"When the husband is acquitted of allegations under Sections 498A, IPC after undergoing trial, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty was meted out on the husband."
Divorce Decree Stands: A Door Ajar for Alimony
FA No.185 of 2022 was dismissed on April 6, 2026, affirming the trial court's December 9, 2021 decree. The bench clarified the wife can still apply for permanent alimony under post-judgment.
This ruling reinforces that prolonged separation plus false litigation erodes marriages irreparably, guiding future courts to view such patterns as cruelty. For estranged couples, it signals: empty shells of matrimony need not endure.
