Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 1678

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, MADHURESH PRASAD, JJ.
Poulomi Biswas – Appellant
Versus
Shamik Bisws – Respondent
FAT No. 193 of 2020, CAN No. 2 of 2023
Decided On : 18-12-2023

Advocates:
For the Appellant: Mr. Chandi Charan De, Adv., Mr. Sadhan Kr. Haldar, Adv., Mr. Ashok Kr. Sarkar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ritendra Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Shibasis Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Sandip Kundu, Adv., Mr. A. Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

The definition of cruelty in matrimonial law is complex and varies contextually, requiring sensitive judicial consideration of social dynamics and behaviors.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13 and 13B - Definition of ‘Cruelty’ in matrimonial disputes - The court underscores that ‘cruelty’ lacks a precise definition, requiring consideration of social conduct and behavior to adjudicate matrimonial issues. The evolution of legislation allows for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, acknowledging social realities affecting marital relationships. (Paras 1-2)

(B) Judicial approach - The complexity of determining cruelty is further emphasized by the courts' need for a sensitive and social justice approach, especially concerning gender issues and the implications of litigation on spousal relationships. The court noted that merely filing a complaint does not constitute cruelty, but resultant trials can represent forms of cruelty. (Paras 4-6)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arose from a husband's claim of cruelty by the wife, alleging quarrelsome behavior and desertion, while the wife maintained that the husband neglected her and their child. Crucial was the wife's stance on her criminal complaint against the husband under Section 498A IPC, which was dismissed. (Para 7)

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the husband proved allegations of cruelty, affirming the trial court's dissolution of marriage. (Para 8)

Issues: The main issues addressed included the definition of ‘cruelty’ and whether the husband presented sufficient evidence to support his claims against the wife amidst their conflicting narratives. (Para 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that identifying cruelty hinges on specific contexts and behaviors of both parties in marital law; the court upheld the principle that the normal stresses of marriage do not amount to legal cruelty unless extreme. (Para 10)

Result: The appeal sans merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. To define “Cruelty” in relation to a matrimonial dispute is an arduous task and the complex issue which the Court often face as in a matrimonial law, the cruelty has not been defined nor given a definite or precise meaning. Albeit, such complex issue, the Courts have attempted to define “cruelty” in relation to a matrimonial cause in pursuit of dispensation of justice and providing a reliefs under in the matrimonial laws. Upon codification of the Hindu law, the first step which the legislatures took is to enact Hindu Marriage Act in the year 1955 encapsulating the remedies to the spouse in detaching the association or coming out of the matrimonial institution by virtue of a dissolution of marriage. In the formative year of promulgation of the Hindu Marriage Act, the dissolution of marriage was restricted to the grounds provided in Section 13 of the said Act but subsequently, the legislatures being conscious of the fact that compelling the spouse to remain in matrimonial institution may have a cascading effect not only in relation to their life but the society at large and incorporated Section 13B of the said Act whereunder the parties without assigning any ground and proving the same before the Court of law may decide to disassociate themselves from the said institution. The respective decision of the spouses if they feel that remaining in the institution is not possible because of the various reasons, such freedom was duly recognised by bringing the suitable amendments in the legislation in the form of a dissolution of marriage by mutual consent.

2. The complexity of defining the cruelty in a litigation at the behest of one of the spouses against the others is most difficult task of the Court of law as one incident or the series of incidents may not come within the ambit thereof to one of spouses but may come in relation to the other and, therefore, it is an ardent duty of the Court to decide a matter taking into account the conduct, the behaviour, the social aspect of the persons in matrimonial institution. The series of judgments have defined cruelty to be such which would cause injury and harm to the other thereby inculcating a sense of insecurity not only of their life, body or a person but a mental status as well rendering it impossible to remain together. It would somewhat be an easier task to understand the concept of cruelty if cause to a body or a person physically but it is more complicated when the cruelty is in relation to a mental status of the parties and, therefore, it is an onerous duty of the Court to arrive at the conclusion whether the solitary act or the series of act constitute mental cruelty.

3. Even the Apex Court in case of Raj Talreja vs. Kavita Talreja, 2017 (4) ICC 329 (SC) held that the cruelty in a matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed. It is further held that the cruelty can never be defined with exactitude nor can be given a restrictive meaning but has to be understood in relation to the attending facts and circumstances involved in the proceedings.

4. In Vishwanath Agrawal vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 SCC 288, the Apex Court also highlighted the complexity of bringing the definition of a cruelty within a limited contour as it has an inseparable nexus with the human conduct or the human behaviour which varies because of the disparity under the social strata or milieu. In Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, the Apex Court succinctly highlighted the human behaviour, human mind and the complexity of understanding the same by observing that the human mind is extremely complex and the human behaviour is equally complicated in the following:

“99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in ot