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

2004 Supreme(Cal) 303

High Court Of Calcutta
PRADIPTA RAY, JYOTESH BANERJEE
DIPAK KUMAR SARFCAR - Appellant
Versus
SIMA SARFCAR - Respondent
FIRST APPEAL 63  Of  1992
Decided On : 04/29/2004

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.RAKSHIT, ASIT BANERJEE, S.N.CHATTOPADHYAY

Unfounded allegations of cruelty against a spouse, even in a written statement, constitute valid grounds for granting a divorce on the ground of cruelty by the guilty party making such allegations.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 13(1)(ia) - CRUELTY - DIVORCE - IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE: 1. Unfounded allegations of cruelty against a spouse, even in a written statement, constitute valid grounds for granting a divorce on the ground of cruelty by the guilty party making such allegations. 2. Mental cruelty broadly means causing mental pain, agony, or suffering of such magnitude that it severs the bond between spouses, making it impossible for the aggrieved party to live with the other. 3. Divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act can only be granted on grounds specified in Section 13. Allowing divorce on grounds not mentioned in Section 13 would be an act without legal sanction, except under Article 142 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. 4. The doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marital relationships is not a new or separate ground outside the purview of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is an extension of the concept of mental cruelty. 5. When neither spouse genuinely intends to live together, and one pretends willingness with a capricious motive or for revenge, forcing the other to bear an unbearable legal relationship, the court may consider it oppressive and cruel to continue such a dead relationship and grant a divorce.

Fact of the Case:

Husband filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty, alleging that his wife was cold towards him sexually, neglected him, and treated him poorly. The wife denied the allegations and claimed that the husband had an illicit relationship with her younger sister.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the husband's allegations of cruelty were not substantiated by evidence. The court also found that the husband had a clandestine love affair with his sister-in-law, which was an act of cruelty towards the wife.

Issues: 1. Whether the husband had proved that the wife treated him with cruelty? 2. Whether the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the husband failed to prove that the wife treated him with cruelty. The allegations of sexual coldness and neglect were not supported by evidence, and the husband's attempt to introduce new allegations in his evidence was viewed with suspicion. 2. The court held that the marriage between the parties had not irretrievably broken down. While the husband was unwilling to live with the wife, the wife expressed a willingness to continue the marriage. The court found that the husband's love affair with his sister-in-law was a factor in his desire for divorce, but it did not constitute an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the divorce petition.

J. BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 23. 3. 91 passed by the Additional District judge, 11th Court, Alipore in Mat. Suit No. 72/86.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts and circumstances leading to filing of the instant appeal are as follows: the petitioner Dipak Kumar Sarkar filed an application mainly praying for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, Sima Sarkar. In the original petition, the petitioner alleged that the marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites at Sodepur within P. S. Khardah in the District of 24-parganas (at present North 24-Parganas) in the father's house of respondent on 6th of December, 1976. The marriage between the parties was a negotiated one. It was alleged there that the parties lived together as husband and wife till the end of January, 1984 and out of the wedlock a female and a male children were born. At the time of filing the petition the age of the female child was 5 years and that of the male child was 9 months. It was further alleged that after their marriage, the parties started living at L. I. G. Housing Estate situated in Belgachia Road. It was further alleged that upto the end of January, 1984 both the husband and wife continued to live in the same flat. Thereafter, they were living separately, cooking their meals separately and since February, 1984 there was no marital relations between the parties, though they continued to live in the same flat and this was culmination of extreme cruel treatment both physical and mental by the respondent/wife towards her husband in the following manner: (I) The respondent/wife failed to discharge her marital obligation towards the petitioner causing deterioration of the mental and physical condition of the petitioner. (II) The respondent/wife was of dominating nature and she wanted to dominate everybody including the petitioner. Prior to February, 1984, the respondent used to keep the entire monthly salary of the petitioner in her custody and did not pay him even the pocket expenses. (III) The respondent was a quarrelsome woman who used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner and others without any cause and used to abuse the petitioner in filthy language. The wife became more furious since February 1984, when she became pregnant with the male child. She used to create scene in the flat for which it was almost impossible for the petitioner to live in the said flat. The respondent refused to cook food for the petitioner and on many occasions he had to go to his place of work without taking his meal. (IV) The respondent used to threaten that she would commit suicide and in this way would teach the petitioner a lesson. (V) The respondent preferred to stay in her parents' place in most of the time without caring to take consent of the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN connection with the suit, the respondent/wife filed a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the petition. The respondent specifically alleged in her written statement that from her early childhood she was a girl of soft and submissive nature and after her marriage she came to reside with her husband as a very loving and loyal bride. She was always attentive and careful to his minimum needs and she never opened her mouth even to protest against her husband, even when he was palpably wrong. The respondent was utterly shocked when she came to learn that her husband had a clandestine love affair with her own younger sister Kabita. The petitioner even threatened to marry the said Kabita after obtaining divorce from the respondent. The father of the respondent asked her youngest sister Kabita to shun the company of the petitioner. One of the friends of the father of the respondent Sunil Chowdhury tried to intervene in the matter but in his presence the petitioner openly declared that he was bent upon marrying kabita and respondent should give her conse










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