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

2019 Supreme(Cal) 118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
I.P. MUKERJI, SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, JJ.
Pranay Kumar Kundu - Appellant
Versus
Rupanjana Kundu - Respondent
First Appeal No. 60 of 2018
Decided On : 15-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Asit Barun Raut, Adv., Tuhin Subhro Raut, Adv., Ishita Raut, Adv., Swagata Datta, Adv., Rajib Lochan Chakraborty, Adv., Vaswati Chakraborty, Adv., Sneha Chatterjee, Adv., Subhadip Chakraborty, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that mental cruelty, causing acute mental pain and suffering, can lead to the dissolution of marriage under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Headnote:

mental cruelty - dissolution of marriage - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 27(1)(d)

Fact of the Case:

The marriage between the parties lasted for a brief period of three months, during which the wife was allegedly subjected to mental cruelty by the husband. The wife lodged a First Information Report accusing the husband of demanding dowry and physically assaulting her. The husband denied the allegations and claimed that the wife's behavior had become rude and cruel shortly after the marriage.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the wife was subjected to mental cruelty by the husband, leading to a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful and injurious to live with him. The Court held that the marriage had deteriorated to such an extent that it would be impossible for the parties to live together without mental agony, torture, or distress.

Issues: The main issue was whether the wife was subjected to mental cruelty entitling her to obtain a divorce under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The conduct complained of should be grave and weighty, causing acute mental pain, agony, and suffering, making it impossible for the parties to live together.

Final Decision: The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower Court, granting a decree of divorce to the wife on the ground of mental cruelty and dismissed the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

I.P. MUKERJI, J.

1. I have had the privilege of reading the draft judgment prepared by my brother, Mr. Justice Subhasis Dasgupta. I am in full agreement with the conclusions his lordship has reached. However, I would like to add a few words of my own. This marriage between the parties which seemingly started on a happy note ended for all practical purposes within three months of marriage. The marriage took place on 3rd February, 2013 by registration under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The marriage according to religious and social rites was arranged on 4th March, 2013. Why I say that this marriage started on a seemingly very happy note is because this couple had two honeymoons shortly after the marriage. On and from 19th to 25th March, 2013 the parties were holidaying in Puri. Not even a month passed. On 19th April, they were off to Shimla on a tour of Himachal Pradesh. It appears that trouble started between them during this holiday. Not a week passed after the return of the couple from their second honeymoon. On 3rd May, 2013 the respondent/wife lodged a First Information Report with the Officer-in-Charge of Uttarpara Police Station which was registered and a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal code started against the appellant/husband. What was stated by the respondent in the First Information Report was that immediately after the ceremonial marriage on 4th March, 2013 her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law started torturing her demanding Rs. 2 lakhs as dowry which allegedly was demanded from her parents at the time of her marriage. It seems that immediately after their return from Himachal Pradesh the parties started residing in a flat in Uttarpara. The respondent stated in the First Information Report that the night before the First Information Report was prepared, the appellant had asked her to call her parents by telephone to deliver Rs. 1 lakh immediately. As the respondent refused to telephone, she was physically assaulted and threatened with death. The gold jewellery and other items of furniture that were made over by her parents to the appellant's parents were itemized below the First Information Report.

2. Later it transpired that the holiday in Puri was incident free. Discord between the couple started in Shimla. According to the evidence of the respondent, she was kept confined by her husband in a hotel in Shimla called Pitter Hoff for 2 to 3 days and was not provided proper food. The husband kept on demanding Rs. 2 lakhs as the unpaid dowry amount. The matrimonial home was the Uttarpara flat. There, she was repeatedly physically assaulted which she bore in silence. There is some discrepancy in the testimony of the wife. The evidence given by the husband reveals that the couple only stayed for one night in Pitter Hoff Hotel in Shimla. The phone call details of the wife's mobile phone reveal that she made several calls to her parents.

3. It also appears from the evidence of the husband (Paragraph 39) that the wife ceased to live with him after 3rd May, 2013.

4. Now, the only question which falls for consideration is whether in this brief marriage between the parties, the respondent/wife was subjected to mental torture so as to entitle her to obtain divorce under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. There is no dispute whatsoever that cruelty includes within its ambit mental cruelty. The allegation of the wife is that she was subjected to great mental cruelty in these three months of marriage.

5. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines cruelty as cruel behaviour or attitudes. It also signifies behaviour which causes physical or mental harm to another whether intentional or not. Cruel according to that dictionary is described as disregarding or taking the pleasure in the pain or suffering of others or causing pain or suffering. In my opinion, any action, conduct or behaviour of a person causing pain or suffering to his spouse in his or her mind or affecting a person psychol




































































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