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

1995 Supreme(Cal) 373

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Samir Kumar Mookherjee & Rabin Bhattacharyya, JJ.
Sukhomoy Bag
vs.
Mrs. Jaya Bag
F. A. No. 50 of 1990
Decided On: September 21, 1995

Advocates Appeared:
S. Bhuniya, P. K. Pahari for the appellant;
A. Sengupta, B. Ghosal for the respondent.

A marriage may be dissolved by a decree of divorce if the court finds that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, even in the absence of a specific provision in the statute authorizing such a decree.

Headnote:

MATRIMONIAL LAW - NULLITY OF MARRIAGE - CRUELTY - IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE: 1. Cruelty, as a ground for nullity of marriage, must be of such a nature as to make it unsafe for the petitioner to live with the respondent. 2. In the absence of any evidence of cruelty or other matrimonial misconduct on the part of the respondent, a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of cruelty will be dismissed. 3. Where a marriage has broken down irretrievably, the court may grant a decree of divorce, even in the absence of a specific provision in the statute authorizing such a decree. 4. The break-down theory of divorce is based on the principle that when a marriage has broken down without any possibility of repair, it should be dissolved without regard to the fault of either party.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner-husband filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of cruelty. He alleged that the respondent-wife had refused to consummate the marriage, had subjected him to physical and mental cruelty, and had driven him out of the matrimonial home. The respondent denied the allegations of cruelty and claimed that the marriage had been consummated and that she had been a faithful and loving wife.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence did not support the petitioner's allegations of cruelty. It held that the respondent had not refused to consummate the marriage, that she had not subjected the petitioner to physical or mental cruelty, and that she had not driven him out of the matrimonial home. The court also found that the marriage had broken down irretrievably.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondent had been guilty of cruelty towards the petitioner. 2. Whether the marriage had broken down irretrievably.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence did not support the petitioner's allegations of cruelty. It found that the respondent had not refused to consummate the marriage, that she had not subjected the petitioner to physical or mental cruelty, and that she had not driven him out of the matrimonial home. 2. The court held that the marriage had broken down irretrievably. It found that the parties had grown apart and that there was no possibility of reconciliation.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition for nullity of marriage. It also granted a decree of divorce on the ground that the marriage had broken down irretrievably.

JUDGMENT

Rabin Bhattacharyya, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in Mat. Suit No. 3 of 1986 against the judgement and decree passed on 24th June, 1989 dismissing the suit on contest without cost against the respondent. Before adverting to the core problem of the lis, it is advisable to take our journey through the factual matrix which may afford considerable materials to get a grip to the controversy.

2. There is an adage in English, "Count the day in the night". This adage is applicable in all spheres of life where marital life has not been excepted. The question arises in this way:-

When a marriage is solemnised or undergone, parties hover between hope and disparity.

3. It gleans from the factual exposure of the case that the parties were the lecturers of the college who had undergone the marriage under the Special Marriage Act on 10. 12. 1980 founded on negotiation where relatives of both the parties took an active role.

4. The petitioner, since devoid of accommodation, one of the rituals namely, 'Fulsujja' took place at the residence of the father-in-law. The petitioner in evidence of marriage put vermillion mark on the forehead of the respondent which lost its seat by the action of her newly wedded wife. The explanation sought for by him brought bickerings which the members of her family shared. A thick could densed over the marital life which was the premonition of all evil super added with the refusal of the respondent to agree to any sexual act from the inception of marriage. Her aversion to sexual life to become a mother seated heavily on her mind which was never unseated. Even his visit to Puri with her relatives never reflected any happiness as the petitioner all along indulged in his insatiable longing to consummate the marriage. But for the savage outburst of temper of the wife, the consummation of marriage was a far cry in wilderness. He was thrown out of the bed by her aided by assault when attempted consummation.

5. With the passage of time, the petitioner acquired a flat at Saltlake on hire purchase in the name of her wife upon payment of Rs. 2,040/ - in October, 1981 at the behest of the respondent, But his endeavour to make the life peaceful was foiled by the monstrous acts of the respondent who repeated her cruel performance. She blurted out that child, if any, born to them, would impair their vocational life as they were married sufficiently at an old age. The respondent secretly removed the key of the almirah. The respondent removed the marriage certificate, bank pass book, post office pass books and other important documents. The demand of key brought doleful sorrow and unhappiness as the respondent hurled invectives where his parents were not spared. He was threatened with assault by the brother of the respondent and her mother abused him in filthy languages. The respondent reached the stage of no return ad ultimately the gold ornaments were exchanged by and between the parties. The respondent was unable to perform any sexual act for her illness namely hysteria. The petitioner accordingly was constrained to approach the court for a declaration that the marriage is a nullity.

6. To resist the claim of the petitioner, the respondent has denounced the claim of the petitioner that she perpetrated cruelty. The story of removal of vermillion mark and non-consummation of marriage is a travesty of truth. The marriage was fully consummated. She could not bear the child for the contraceptive used by her husband who was a slave of perverted sexual acts and deeds which the respondent had to bear with much pain. She alone paid the money for the flat but her husband paid only one instalment once for all. The story of removal of key of the book shelf is a myth. Neither the petitioner took away the key of the Almirah nor subjected him to any cruel treatment. She wanted to be a good wife but her wishes were dashed to earth. She was always faithful to house-hold duties





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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