Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Samapti Chatterjee, Manojit Mandal, JJ.
Suchitra Kumar Singha Roy - Appellant
Versus
Arpita Singha Roy - Respondent
First Appeal No. 135 of 2014
Decided On : 20-03-2020
Ashis Bagchi, Advocate, Indrani Chatterjee, Advocate, Kushal Chatterjee, Advocate, Srijib Chakraborty, Advocate, Debabrata Roy, Advocate, S. Das, Advocate
The deliberate filing of a false criminal case, resulting in the arrest and subsequent acquittal of the spouse and relatives, can amount to cruelty justifying the dissolution of the marriage.
Headnote:
Cruelty - Matrimonial Dispute - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 406, 313 - The court decreed the matrimonial suit on contest, dissolving the marriage tie between the parties by a decree of divorce. The court found that the wife's deliberate filing of a false criminal case against the husband and his relatives, resulting in their arrest and subsequent acquittal, amounted to cruelty creating an apprehension about life, thus justifying the divorce. The court relied on precedents to establish the nature of cruelty and its impact on the matrimonial relationship.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/husband filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, alleging mental and physical cruelty by the respondent/wife. The respondent contested the suit, denying the allegations and accusing the petitioner and his family of mistreatment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the husband's evidence trustworthy and reliable, while the wife's evidence lacked credibility. The court noted the deliberate filing of a false criminal case by the wife, resulting in the arrest of the husband and his relatives, and their subsequent acquittal. The court concluded that the wife's actions amounted to cruelty justifying the dissolution of the marriage.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit with costs, and whether the husband had proven the cruelty necessary for obtaining a decree of divorce.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deliberate filing of a false criminal case by the wife, resulting in the arrest and subsequent acquittal of the husband and his relatives, amounted to cruelty justifying the dissolution of the marriage. The court relied on precedents to establish the nature of cruelty and its impact on the matrimonial relationship.
Final Decision: The court decreed the matrimonial suit on contest, dissolving the marriage tie between the parties by a decree of divorce. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs in the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Manojit Mandal, J. - This first appeal is at the instance of the petitioner/husband of a matrimonial proceeding and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th September, 2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Burdwan, District- Burdwan, in Matrimonial Suit No. 33 of 2008, whereby the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on contest but without costs.
2. The plaint case, in short, is that the petitioner/husband was married to the respondent/wife on 4th day of February, 2002, according to Hindu Rites and Customs and after marriage they started to live together as husband and wife in the house of the petitioner/husband. After 2-3 years of marriage, respondent/wife being instigated by the inmates of her parent's house, started to misbehave with and abuse him and his parents and with his elder brother and sister-in-law. The further case of the petitioner/husband is that wife/respondent did not use to do any domestic work and as and when petitioner/husband would protest it, she used to raise hue and cry and lastly since 10th February, 2004, his parents started living in separate house and his brother also started living in Memari in a rented house along with his wife. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that respondent/wife was quarrelsome lady and she used to pick up quarrel on various issues and she used to subject him with various sorts of mental and physical cruelty as the respondent/wife was an active member of Mahila Samity. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that respondent/wife would not spare time to him and his son and on 28th April, 2007, following a dispute regarding admission of his son in the village school, she assaulted him with a sickle and lastly petitioner/husband was forced to file a suit for a decree of judicial separation, which was registered as MAT Suit No. 125 of 2007 and which was subsequently compromised on 12th June, 2007. Thereafter, they lived peacefully for some days. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that to prevent birth of further issue, they used to use contraceptive pills but since the respondent/wife had forgotten to use the same, she was conceived again and on 17th June, 2007, the respondent/wife got aborted in one Nursing Home out of her own volition and even going against the intention of him. It is the further case of the petitioner/husband that on 21st June, 2007, when the petitioner/husband got back at home after having bath in a nearby pond, the respondent/wife did not allow him to enter into the room and kept him standing with wet wearing apparels for at least 11/2 hours and in spite of being requested on numerous times, respondent/wife did not open the door and hence petitioner/husband was forced to take shelter in another house, where his parents used to reside and on the very same day in the evening when he had been to the former house, he was abused and was not allowed to stay in that house. Thereafter, on 23rd June, 2007, the respondent/wife lodged a false complaint against him, his parents, his brother and sisters-in-law and treating the compliant as FIR being No. 152, one case under Sections 498A, 406 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code was started against them. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that respondent/wife had been inflicting tortures upon them since long back. On 21st June, 2008, he and his parents were assaulted at the hands of the respondent/wife and he and his mother were kept under lock and key for at least 7 hours. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that since 21st June, 2007, he did not resume conjugal life with the respondent/wife and there is possibility of his being murdered at her hand at any point of time. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that criminal case arising out of the said FIR being Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2008 was disposed of on 18th March, 2009 and all of them were acquitted from this case. Further case of the petitioner/husband is that he never condones such cr
