Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 154

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, UDAY KUMAR, JJ.
Subhendu Naskar – Appellant
Versus
Ramita Naskar (Ranjan) – Respondent
F.A.T. No. 28 of 2023
Decided On : 05-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Zohaib Rauf, Rajdeep Mantha, Barnamoy Basak
For the Respondents: Kallol Basu, Nilanjan Pal

Continuous baseless allegations and criminal complaints by one spouse can constitute mental cruelty, justifying divorce when the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

Headnote:(A) Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Divorce - Grounds of cruelty - Dismissal of husband's suit for divorce on grounds of cruelty due to wife's allegations of illicit relationship and repeated criminal complaints - Court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, and the wife's actions constituted mental cruelty. (Paras 1, 10, 64, 78)

(B) Mental Cruelty - Definition and scope - Conduct inflicting mental pain and suffering, making it impossible for parties to live together - Allegations of extramarital affairs and frivolous complaints can amount to mental cruelty. (Paras 15, 20, 66)

(C) Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Recognized as a ground for divorce, especially when both parties treat each other with cruelty - Sustaining such a marriage is detrimental to both parties and society. (Paras 23, 66, 76)

Facts of the case:
The appellant/husband filed for divorce after the relationship soured, citing cruelty due to the respondent/wife's allegations and criminal complaints. The wife had initially filed a complaint under IPC sections but later withdrew it, only to revive it during the divorce proceedings. (Paras 1-9)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the wife's actions, which constituted mental cruelty, and granted a decree of divorce. (Paras 80-82)

Issues: Whether the wife's allegations and actions constituted cruelty and whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down. (Paras 10, 64)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continuous filing of baseless criminal complaints and serious allegations without corroborative evidence amounted to mental cruelty, justifying the dissolution of marriage. (Paras 76, 78)

Result: Appeal allowed; decree of divorce granted.

Table of Content
1. parties entered into marriage (Para 1 , 2)
2. relationship soured and complaints (Para 3)
3. wife withdrew complaint (Para 4)
4. parties resided at rented house (Para 5)
5. suit for restitution of conjugal rights (Para 6)
6. wife filed narazi petition (Para 7)
7. birth of daughter (Para 8)
8. divorce suit filed (Para 9)
9. irretrievable breakdown of marriage (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
10. wild and unsubstantiated allegations (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
11. no clear corroborative evidence (Para 34 , 35)
12. repeated nature of complaints (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
13. contradictory statements (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
14. allegations without corroborative evidence (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 83 , 84 , 85)
15. marriage has irretrievably broken down (Para 80)
16. grant a decree of divorce (Para 81 , 82)

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment and decree whereby the appellant/husband’s suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

2. The parties entered into matrimonial tie under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 by registration under the said Act on August 15, 2007, which was followed by a “social marriage.”

3. However, thereafter the relationship between the parties soured and the respondent/wife filed a complaint against the husband and his family members under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, giving rise to Thakurpukur P.S. Case No. 69 of 2010, on February 15, 2010, according to the husband/appellant, immediately after the spouses returning from a visit to Digha.

4. On March 22, 2010, however, the respondent/wife wrote to the O.C. Thakurpukur Police Station not to proceed with the criminal case and accordingly, the police filed an FRT, dropping the criminal complaint.

5. Thereafter the parties resided at a rented house, apparently due to the wishes of the respondent/wife.

6. On February 21, 2012, the appellant/husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent/wife.

7. On June 5, 2012, the respondent/wife filed a “Narazi” petition, thereby reviving the criminal case against the appellant/husband and his family members.

8. In the month of September, 2012, the respondent/wife returned to her matrimonial home and the parties resided together, culminating in the birth of a daughter on July 15, 2014 from the wedlock.

9. Thereafter the relationship between the parties was embittered again and on December 13, 2017, a divorce suit was filed by the appellant/husband, which, being dismissed on contest, the present appeal has been preferred.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that several allegations of cruelty were made in the plaint, regarding torture meted out by the respondent/wife against the husband and his family members, particularly his mother. However, the plinth of the submissions regarding cruelty made by the appellant/husband revolve around two factors - the filing of several criminal complaints against the appellant/husband and his family members before and during the pendency of the divorce suit and secondly, allegations of illicit relationship between the appellant and one of his office colleagues, whom we choose not to name in order to avoid invading her privacy unnecessarily.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband argues that even after withdrawing the initial criminal complaint, the respondent/wife, as a backlash to the appellant’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights, filed the Narazi petition, reviving the complaint and seeking further investigation into the matter.

12. It is argued that although there was no whisper of any claim for dowry in the written statement and evidence led by the respondent in the matrimonial suit, the primar