‘Patriarchal, Condescending’: Calcutta High Court Criticizes Trial Judge’s Remarks in Divorce Case

The Calcutta High Court recently set aside a 2018 judgment of a trial court that had dismissed a husband’s plea for divorce, citing not only a complete lack of legal reasoning but also an excessive reliance on “literary jargon” and patriarchal commentary.

A division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar allowed the appeal filed by the husband, granting him divorce on the ground of cruelty. The high court found the trial court’s decision to be "perverse".

Court noted that some of the words used by the trial judge were entirely de hors the pleadings of both the parties and were the same as had been used by the same judge in other matrimonial judgments.

Court held that "the mindset of the trial judge appeared to spring up from a patriarchal and condescending approach, thereby attributing a condescending role to the husband, to advice his wife properly and also to condone cruel acts of the wife by trying to 'bridge the gap' between the parties".

The division bench emphasised that the settled law in matrimonial disputes is that the court has to look at the conduct of the parties from their perspective and to come to a finding as to whether there is any cruelty, either mental or physical, perpetrated by either of the spouses against the other so as to make it impossible for normal conjugal life to be led together by them.

Court highlighted that the trial judge had written that the husband was guilty of his "lustful attitude", although such "lustful attitude" was not reflected even from the pleadings of the wife. 

Court further pointed out that the trial judge had even formulated certain “auspicious principles” which he discovered could “glorify the concept of a successful marriage in its optimum success”.

"There are several other literary jargon used inappropriately and merely to flash the vocabulary of the judge without fitting in the flowery terms in their proper place," the bench said. 

It termed the trial judge's remarks "wishful and delirious fiction to the facts of the case" and stressed that in his plaint, the husband had categorically alleged several instances of cruelty by the wife. 

Court noted that against these allegations, the wife had merely made bald denials in her written statement which were not coupled with any positive assertion or explanation and were "evasive in nature".

The court noted that the wife’s only positive assertion was being made to do domestic work during pregnancy, prompting her parents to take her home, but her written statement offered no explanation for not returning to the matrimonial home or resuming conjugal life.

Court further pointed out that before the trial court, the wife did not lead any independent evidence in support of her defence case. Also, she did not cross-examine the husband. Moreover, she did not participate in conciliation proceedings as well as in the suit after filing her written statement before the trial court. She also abstained from mediation ordered by the high court. 

"It clearly shows that the marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably," the high court and accordingly granted the divorce decree to the husband on the ground of cruelty. 

Before parting with the judgment, the division bench stressed that it stopped short of making any serious adverse comment against the trial judge merely because such a comment could have an adverse effect on the service career of the judge.

"However, we expect that the learned Judge concerned shall be aware in future about copy-pasting his previous judgments and in going on his own tangential curve of wishful imagination instead of adverting to the facts and materials on record in the particular case before him," the bench noted. 

It also warned that if any future instance of such act on the part of the learned trial judge is noticed, the same may be directed to be entered into his service book.

Case Title: Abhijit Mitra vs Dipa Mitra 

Download judgment here