Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Indira Benerjee, Tapabrata Chakraborty, JJ.
Deb Narayan Halder - Appellant
Versus
Anushree Halder - Respondent
F.A. No. 35 of 2005
Decided On : 21-11-2013
For the Appellant :Siddhartha Lahiri and Aritra Chakrabarty, Advocates
For the Respondent:Shyam Sundar Manna, Advocate
The court held that the wife's refusal to sign a document deleting her name from a joint bank account, without any reasonable explanation, and her act of writing letters to the school authorities, making serious allegations against the husband and requesting them not to allow him to meet his son, constituted cruelty. The court further held that the husband had also perpetrated cruelty on the wife by his attempt to remove her name from the joint bank account and by his subsequent actions and allegations.
Headnote:
MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE - DIVORCE - CRUELTY - SECTION 13(1)(ia) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - INTERPRETATION - ACTS OF CRUELTY BY BOTH SPOUSES - COURT'S DISCRETION IN GRANTING DIVORCE - MAINTENANCE AND ALIMONY - SECTION 25 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - PRINCIPLES FOR AWARDING PERMANENT ALIMONY - CONSIDERATION OF SPOUSES' INCOME AND STATUS - DIRECT DEPOSIT OF ALIMONY BY EMPLOYER BANK - FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE - CONSEQUENCES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant husband filed a petition for divorce against the respondent wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty. The wife denied the allegations and filed a written statement alleging cruelty and ill-treatment by the husband and his family. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that the alleged acts of cruelty by the husband did not constitute sufficient grounds for divorce.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal and granted a decree of divorce. It held that the wife's refusal to sign a document deleting her name from a joint bank account, without any reasonable explanation, constituted cruelty. Additionally, the wife's act of writing letters to the school authorities, making serious allegations against the husband and requesting them not to allow him to meet his son, also amounted to cruelty. The court further held that the husband had also perpetrated cruelty on the wife by his attempt to remove her name from the joint bank account and by his subsequent actions and allegations.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife's refusal to sign a document deleting her name from a joint bank account constituted cruelty. 2. Whether the wife's act of writing letters to the school authorities, making serious allegations against the husband and requesting them not to allow him to meet his son, constituted cruelty. 3. Whether the husband had also perpetrated cruelty on the wife by his attempt to remove her name from the joint bank account and by his subsequent actions and allegations. 4. Whether the parties had crossed the point of no return and reconciliation was not possible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the wife's refusal to sign a document deleting her name from a joint bank account, without any reasonable explanation, constituted cruelty. The court reasoned that such an act was arbitrary and unreasonable, and caused mental anguish and distress to the husband. 2. The court also held that the wife's act of writing letters to the school authorities, making serious allegations against the husband and requesting them not to allow him to meet his son, constituted cruelty. The court reasoned that such an act was intended to harm the husband's reputation and to alienate him from his son, and caused him mental anguish and distress. 3. The court further held that the husband had also perpetrated cruelty on the wife by his attempt to remove her name from the joint bank account and by his subsequent actions and allegations. The court reasoned that such acts were intended to humiliate and degrade the wife, and caused her mental anguish and distress. 4. The court concluded that the parties had crossed the point of no return and reconciliation was not possible. The court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli and Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy, and held that where the parties have separated for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can be presumed that the marriage has broken down and divorce should not be withheld.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and granted a decree of divorce. The court also awarded permanent alimony of Rs. 6000/- per month to the wife, to be directly deducted from the husband's salary by his employer bank and deposited in the wife's bank account.
1. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 4th September, 2003 passed by the Principal Judge, First Family Court, Calcutta dismissing Matrimonial Suit No.128 of 2002 filed by the appellant husband against the respondent wife, seeking a decree of divorce.
2. It appears that the appellant husband was married to the respondent wife according to the Hindu Rites on 24th February, 1985. On 14th January, 1987, a son was born of the said wedlock between the respondent wife and the appellant husband. It appears that the appellant husband and the respondent wife lived together as husband and wife till 1995, but thereafter parted ways. In the plaint filed in the Court below, the petitioner alleged as follows:
"That the parties lived happily and enjoyed their conjugal life upto the year of 1995. That the petitioner is an employee of State Bank of Hyderabad, was then posted at Brabourne Road Branch, Kolkata. On 23.5.96 the petitioner received an official instruction/circular in connection with the Income Tax return asking to file separate individual return of Income Tax apart from returns submitted by the employer/office. On receipt of this circular, the petitioner met the Branch Manager and narrated him regarding the joint A/c. he had. Then the Branch Manager advised to the petitioner to delete the name of respondent from the joint A/c. and convert the A/c in the name of the petitioner only, other wise your petitioner would not be allowed to file Income Tax return as asked by the Income Tax Deptt. Accordingly your petitioner wrote an application addressed to Branch Manager to delete the name of respondent from the said joint salary account and the petitioner put his signature on the application. On returning at home the petitioner narrated the facts and circumstances tot he respondent and handover the said application and the respondent was asked to go through the application and sigh. The respondent not only refuse to sign on the said application but also began to abuse various filthy and vulgar languages all though the letter was given for sign at 6-30 p.m. and your petitioner waited upto 10-20 p.m. Instead of signing over the application the respondent further created a scene by raising hue and cry which attracted various people from the neighbours etc. who came on the spot and dragged the petitioner out of his house and even assaulted the petitioner by fist and blows at the instance of the respondent. Not being satisfied with such humiliation tot he petitioner by the local residence, the respondent on the next day i.e. on 24.5.96 left the matrimonial home at about 5-15 a.m. with the minor child without giving any information/whereabouts to the petitioner and at noon time she went to the State Bank of Hyderabad (the then place of employment of the petitioner) alongwith her elder brother and few other local holligans and met the Branch Manager of the said Bank and narrated several baseless allegations against the petitioner with a clear intention to further humiliate the petitioner in presence of his office staff, customers etc. such act of the respondent defamed the petitioner before this boss, superiors, colleagues and customers.
That due to the fear of further humiliation the petitioner not returned to his house on 24.5.96 and he spent the night at his friends house. After his official duty on 25.5.96 the petitioner returned to his house. At about 12.30 A.M. on 26.5.96, the respondent, her elder brother along with ore or less 20 associates and hooligans came in to the house of the petitioner. The mother-in-law opened to door and some of them entered into the bed room of the petitioner the elder brother of the respondent namely Subhendu Bikash Paul kicked (having shoe on his leg) on the face of the petitioner (without asking anything from the petitioner) causing bleeding injury on his forehead. Thereafter the br
