Kolkata man granted divorce over 'imposition' of wife's friend, family
What's the story
The Calcutta High Court has granted divorce to a man on the grounds of cruelty.
The decision was based on the "imposition" of the wife's friend and family on him and a false case of matrimonial cruelty lodged by her.
The division bench, led by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, overturned a trial court's previous refusal to grant the divorce, calling it "perverse and erroneous."
Case details
Court finds husband's mental cruelty case strong
The December 19 judgment found the husband's case of mental cruelty against his wife strong enough.
The court observed that despite his objections, the wife's friend and family stayed at his official quarters in Kolaghat, East Midnapore district.
"Such imposition of friend and family of the respondent on the husband at his quarter against his will... can definitely be constituted as cruelty," said the bench.
Separation period
Wife's refusal of conjugal life leads to separation
The court noted that this made the husband's life difficult. Further, the wife had denied conjugal life with her husband for a long time, resulting in a prolonged separation.
The couple got married on December 15, 2005, and the husband approached the court for divorce on September 25, 2008.
Soon, the wife filed a complaint against him and his family under Section 498A of IPC.
Acquittal details
Court acquits husband of charges under Section 498A
A criminal court later acquitted them of these charges. The husband's lawyer argued this false complaint was harassment and cruelty.
The wife's lawyer argued the husband failed to prove cruelty, backing the trial court's initial dismissal of the divorce suit.
However, from May 2008, the wife stayed separately at her official quarters in Narkeldanga, Kolkata. Her continued absence from conjugal life was deliberate cruelty, the court said.
Allegation dismissal
Court dismisses wife's allegations as baseless
The bench emphasized that no complaints were raised during their marriage till after their separation.
The judgment concluded that "bald allegations" made by the wife, without any particulars or details, or even mention of specific acts or dates of cruelty were "baseless and unsubstantiated."
These false claims were deemed sufficient cruelty to justify divorce under matrimonial law.