Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, JJ.
Subhendu Naskar – Appellant
versus
Ramita Naskar (Ranjan) – Respondent
F.A.T. No.28 of 2023
Decided on 5.2.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants: Zohaib Rauf, Rajdeep Mantha, Barnamoy Basak
For the Respondents: Kallol Basu, Nilanjan Pal

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Divorce – A dead marriage must be given a decent quietus.
(2) Friendship between two persons of different genders ipso facto cannot, in today’s society, be construed to be illicit relationship.

Headnote:
(A) Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27 – Divorce – Cruelty by wife – Respondent/wife has consistently stated in her evidence that she wants to live with her husband but till date has persisted with criminal complaints and pending criminal proceeding against her husband and her in-laws – Repetitive nature of police complaints are evident from dates of lodging of such complaints, which continued throughout pendency of divorce suit as well – Mere lodging of criminal case is not by itself fatal to defence case – However, it is not required that court should wait till acquittal or conviction by accused in a criminal case to take a call on whether allegations are prima facie baseless – There is not a single piece of corroborative evidence led by respondent/wife in support of her allegation of illicit relation of appellant/husband – Friendship between two persons of different genders ipso facto cannot, in today’s society, be construed to be illicit relationship – Friendship between two persons of different genders ipso facto cannot, in today’s society, be construed to be illicit relation.(Paras 37, 38, 47, 50, 56, 57, 60, 62, 65, 74 and 75)
(B) Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27 – Divorce – Marital discord marred by false criminal complaints filed by wife against her husband – Serious allegations themselves constitute cruelty, particularly read in context of marriage between parties having irretrievably broken down for at least over a decade – Forcing parties to live together in such acrimonious atmosphere would be perpetrating cruelty on both of them – It would be in interest of both parties and society at large to dissolve marriage by construing such breakdown of marriage beyond repair to be cruelty against both spouses – It would be unrealistic for law not to take notice of such irretrievable breakdown of marriage and sustaining the same would be harmful to society and injurious to parties themselves – Marriage between parties has broken down irretrievably and sustaining the same would be detrimental to interest of both – Morbid stench of a dead marriage is writ large over entire relationship of parties – Decree of divorce granted to plaintiff/appellant/husband, dissolving marriage between parties – Respondent/wife given liberty to file application for permanent alimony. (Paras 75, 76, 77, 80 and 81)
Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.—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 primary premise of the criminal complaints was alleged claim for dowry by the husband and his family and resultant torture on the respondent/wife for not paying the same.

13. It is argued that the said complaint and the subsequent revival thereof are counterblasts and arm-twisting tactics used by the respondent against the appellant to brow-beat and force him to accede to her wishes.

14. Learned counsel next contends that although the wife has admitted in her evidence that the appellant’s father has been supportive, both mentally and financially, to the respondent/wife, the criminal case initiated by the wife against not only the husband but his father as well, is still continuing after being revived by the wife. This itself proves that the said complaint is baseless, in view of the contradictory statements made by her. The respondent/wife, on the one hand gives out that she wishes to live with her husband and on the other has been instituting numerous frivolous criminal complaints and cases against her husband and/or his family members ev