Back
2008 Supreme(Cal) 367
High Court Of Calcutta
B. Bhattacharya & Rudrendra Nath Banerjee, JJ.
Uma Biswas - Appellants
Vs
Ram Narayan Biswas - Respondents
F.A. 153 of 1991
Decided on: Apr 03, 2008
Alok Roy Chowdhury, Dipankar Ghosh, Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, Rudradeb Chaudhary,
False allegations of adultery and initiation of false criminal proceedings can constitute mental cruelty and grounds for divorce.
Headnote:
DIVORCE - CRUELTY - MENTAL - FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF KEEPING CONCUBINE AND INITIATION OF FALSE CRIMINAL CASE - GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE - ALIMONY - PERMANENT ALIMONY GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
Wife filed a suit for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Husband counterclaimed for divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the wife made false allegations of keeping a concubine and initiated a false criminal case against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife's allegations of the husband keeping a concubine were baseless and that she had filed a false criminal case against him. The court held that these actions constituted mental cruelty and granted the husband a decree of divorce.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife's allegations of the husband keeping a concubine were true. 2. Whether the wife's initiation of a false criminal case against the husband constituted mental cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the wife's allegations of the husband keeping a concubine were not supported by any evidence and were contradicted by the husband's evidence. 2. The court held that the wife's initiation of a false criminal case against the husband was an act of mental cruelty, as it showed her intent to destroy the marital relationship.
Final Decision: The court granted the husband a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty and directed him to pay the wife permanent alimony of Rs. 2 lakh.
1. THIS first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th September, 1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, burdwan in Matrimonial Suit No. 78 of 1985 thereby passing a decree for divorce.
2. THE husband-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for divorce and the case made out by the respondent may be summed up thus:
(a) The parties were married in the month of December 1982 according to the hindu rites and ceremonies and thereafter they live as husband and wife.
(b) The appellant, from the very beginning, never adjusted herself with the family environment of the respondent and very often, on some pretext or other, picked up quarrel with the respondent and his old parents and other members of the family, and used to leave the matrimonial home and come to her father's residence at Bongaon.
(c) In spite of protest made by the respondent, the appellant became turbulent and used to abuse the respondent and his family members with filthy language and sometimes, used to inflict bodily injury on the respondent and even attempted to kill the respondent by tightly grasping his testicles.
(d) In view of such abnormal behaviour of the appellant, it was not possible for the respondent to live with her as the appellant attempted to dishonour and malign the honour, prestige and reputation of the respondent and his family members by taking recourse to false and malicious allegations before the police and the office master of the respondent.
(e) The appellant deserted the respondent and left the matrimonial home at kalna in May 1984 with all her ornaments and clothings behind the back and the knowledge of the respondent without his consent. Hence the suit. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the application for divorce and her defence may be summarised thus:
(i) After marriage, the appellant wanted to live with her husband at Durgapur but the respondent refused on some pretext or the other. The respondent is an employee of the Central Government of India and had all along a quarter in Durgapur and at the time of marriage negotiation, the respondent gave out to the parents of the appellant that he had no quarter and he used to live in some other's quarter. However, after marriage, it was gradually revealed that the respondent had quarter since the inception of his service and had a concubine named C (we are not mentioning the full name), who was kept in that quarter and for that reason, the respondent refused to live with the appellant at Durgapur.
(ii) The appellant was left at Kalna and the respondent used to come to Kalna only once in a month for a night. It was undesirable and unbearable for the newly married appellant and her warm desire to lead conjugal life with the respondent did not materialise.
(iii) The parents, brothers and sisters of the respondent knew about the said concubine but they remained silent. They also did not behave properly with the appellant and it was impossible for the appellant to live at Kalna without her husband.
(iv) The appellant, however, somehow got the address of the respondent at durgapur and all of a sudden, one day went there and found the said C living in the quarter.
(v) The respondent, having seen the appellant, burst into rage, abused her with filthy language and tried to drive her out. The appellant patiently remained there for some days but thereafter, the appellant was forced to come back to Kalna.
(vi) The appellant tried her best to rectify the respondent with love and service but failed. All the allegations in the application for divorce including the act of physical and mental cruelty pleaded therein were false.
(vii) The respondent for the marriage demanded a dowry of Rs. 15,000/- and ornaments of 10 Bharis of gold and other valuable things from the father of the appellant and the father of
