In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya F.A.T. No. 443 of 2023 Pintu Mahata Vs.

Swarnalata Mahata For the appellant : Mr. D.K. Adhikari, Mr. Tarapada Das, Mr. Debdeep Adhikary For the respondent : Mr. Debrup Choudhury, Mr. Arkaprabho Roy Heard on : 19.02.2026 & 26.02.2026 Reserved on : 26.02.2026 Judgment on : 09.03.2026 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The appellant-husband has preferred the instant appeal, assailing the dismissal of his divorce suit against the respondent-wife, filed on the ground of mental cruelty.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband argues that the learned Trial Judge failed to take into consideration the serious allegations made by the respondent-wife against the appellant and his family members in her written statement, which were unsubstantiated in evidence. At least three instances of such allegations are specifically pointed out to the Court.

3. The respondent pleaded in her written statement that on February 15, 2019, the family members of the appellant had tried to kill her second daughter, which was the culmination of physical and mental torture perpetrated upon her by the appellant and his family due to the birth of the second female child of the respondent.

4. The respondent also alleged in her written statement that the appellant addressed the respondent in filthy language and instigated other persons to “temper” and to give immoral proposals to the respondent by giving her mobile number to them.

5. Thirdly, the respondent also alleged in her written statement that the appellant had an illicit relation with a lady named Sangita Mahata for the couple of years prior to the filing of her written statement, due to which the respondent was also subjected to physical and mental torture.

6. Alleging such physical and mental torture meted out by the appellant and his family, the respondent also lodged a complaint with the local police station, which gave rise to Simlapal Police Station Case No. 24 of 2020 dated May 19, 2020 under Sections 498A, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

7. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that none of the said allegations were corroborated by any material evidence. The criminal case lodged by the respondent, it is submitted, is still pending.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant takes the court through the evidence of the respondent and her mother, respectively as DW-1 and DW-2. It is pointed out that although the respondent had alleged that her second daughter was sought to be killed by the appellant and his family members on February 15, 2019, she admitted in her cross-examination that she did not return to her matrimonial house after December 15, 2018. DW-2, her mother, stated in her cross-examination, however, that the respondent continued to reside at her matrimonial home after the birth of her second female child till the said child was three months old.

9. The first daughter was born of the parties’ wedlock on May 8, 2016 and the second on November 17, 2018, thus taking the said three months’ period after the birth of the second daughter to around February 15, 2019. However, the appellant argues that by the inherent contradiction between the said two statements of DW-1 and DW-2, they demolished each other’s evidence.

10. With regard to the alleged illicit affair of the appellant, DW-1 had merely stated in her evidence about such affair, without furnishing any further detail. Moreover, no independent witness came forward to establish such alleged illicit relation, apart from the wife herself as DW-1 and her mother as DW-2.

11. Thus, it is argued that the false and baseless allegations of the respondent in her written statement, by themselves, tantamounted to mental cruelty against the husband, on which ground alone the learned Trial Judge ought to