SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Cal) 651

High Court Of Calcutta
Altamas Kabir, Gorachand De
BARNALI SEN - Appellant
Versus
DEBASISH SEN - Respondent
F. A. T.  2037  Of  2000
Decided On : 10/09/2001

Advocates Appeared:
Narayan Chandra Ghosh, S.Ghosh, SYMA PRASANNA ROY CHAUDHURY

Mental cruelty, condonation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage are grounds for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 13(1)(1A) - DIVORCE - CRUELTY - MENTAL CRUELTY - PROOF - CORROBORATION - CONDONATION - FORGIVENESS - RESTORATION - MARITAL INFIDELITY - IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent husband filed an application for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant wife under section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging mental cruelty. The appellant wife contested the suit and denied the allegations of cruelty. The trial court, upon considering the evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit and passed a decree of divorce in favor of the respondent husband.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the preponderance of evidence supported the case of mental cruelty made on behalf of the respondent husband. The court found that the appellant wife had developed an unusual intimacy with two different men, which caused severe mental affliction to the respondent husband. The court also found that the appellant wife's actions amounted to marital infidelity and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant wife's actions amounted to mental cruelty towards the respondent husband? 2. Whether the respondent husband had condoned the appellant wife's alleged acts of cruelty? 3. Whether the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant wife's actions, including developing an unusual intimacy with two different men and neglecting her marital duties, amounted to mental cruelty towards the respondent husband. The court relied on the evidence of the respondent husband and his witnesses, as well as the appellant wife's failure to call any of her family members to support her case. 2. The court held that the respondent husband had not condoned the appellant wife's alleged acts of cruelty. The court found that the respondent husband had made repeated attempts to reconcile with the appellant wife, but she had refused to change her ways. 3. The court held that the marriage between the parties had broken down irretrievably. The court found that the appellant wife's actions had caused severe mental affliction to the respondent husband, and that there was no chance of the parties living together again.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant wife's appeal and upheld the trial court's decree of divorce.

A. KABIR, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent husband filed an application before the learned District Judge, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, under section 13 (1) (1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant herein and the same was numbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 1022 of 1996. The suit was subsequently renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 55 of 1996 and was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore, who by his judgment and decree dated 21st June, 2000, allowed the suit on contest and passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties.

( 2 ) THE present appeal has been filed by the defendant wife against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court.

( 3 ) THE case as made out in the plaint is that the respondent was married to the appellant according to Hindu rites on 11th February, 1985. After the marriage, the parties initially resided at 2b Bhim Ghosh Lane, Calcutta - 700 006, and, thereafter, shifted to a rented house at 6/2d, Umakanta Sen Lane, P. S. Chitpore, Calcutta-700 040. A girl child, Debapriya, was born to the couple on 5th July, 1988.

( 4 ) IT was also the case of the respondent that his sister's daughter was staying with the family of the appellant to enable her to prosecute her studies at the Baghbazar Multipurpose School as it was difficult for her to attend school from her parents' residence at Kanchrapara. The appellant resented the said arrangement and ill-treated the respondent's said niece and behaved badly with her. From the very beginning of the marriage, the appellant also appeared to be indifferent towards the respondent and his widowed mother, sister and niece and was not conscious of her duties as a dutiful wife and daughter-in-law. After her marriage the appellant frequently visited her parents' home and neglected her family in her matrimonial home and took little interest in house-hold affairs. She did not care to assist the respondent's mother and sister in running the affairs of the family and even after the birth of her daughter, she often went out leaving the child, who was barely six months old at that time, at home.

( 5 ) IT is also the plaint case that the appellant used to mix with boys of ill repute in the locality and whenever the respondent protested the appellant would flare up and say that she was not a maid servant in the family and she required some form of recreation in life. The appellant subsequently developed an unusual intimacy with a young man named Burki Saha of Umakanta Sen Lane and the respondent came to learn from friends, neighbours and relations about the appellant's deep attachment with the said Burki Saha. The appellant stayed out till even 9 to 10 p. m. and was seen with Burki Saha in restaurants, cinema halls and at Dum Dum New Market, Northern Avenue and other places. The respondent and his family members were put to great embarrassment and had to suffer social disrepute. The respondent tried his best to persuade the appellant to give up her wayward way of life in order to prevent social scandal, but he failed to make any impression on her. Things reached such a state that in the first week of October, 1992, some of Burki Saha's family members came to the house of the respondent and complained that the appellant was spoiling Burki and threatened to take steps against the appellant unless she stopped seeing Burki. Such complaint and threats in the presence of several neighbours caused great embarrassment to the respondent and his family members but the appellant refused to mend her ways and ultimately on 20th October, 1992, she left her matrimonial home with her daughter and belongings and began to stay with her mother.

( 6 ) UNABLE to face local scandal and filthy remarks from the local boys and neighbours, the respondent shifted to his unfinished flat at 23/c, Wards Institution Street in January, 1994, and although the appellant had left her matrimonial home, he used to regularly send m

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top