Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed an appeal by a husband challenging the trial court's order which rejected his plea for marriage dissolution and instead granted a decree of judicial separation. The husband had alleged 'mental cruelty' by the wife, accusing her of stigmatizing his mother's mental health, mistreating in-laws, and abandoning him with their daughter.

A division bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Madhuresh Prasad noted that the issue of mental illness had not been established or proved with any material in the trial. The court stated that such accusations, on their own, couldn't be considered acts of mental cruelty. Additionally, there was no evidence indicating the husband objected to the wife residing with her parents before filing the suit, the court noted.

"We take judicial notice of the fact that family members of a large number of people suffering with mental illness are averse to accept the existence of mental illness, nurturing a baseless fear of social stigma. Such misplaced common notions cannot be accepted by the Court to hold that an allegation of mental illness of the petitioner/ appellant’s mother per se would constitute an act of mental cruelty. Mere failure to prove the allegation of mental illness, cannot be considered as an act of mental cruelty," said the division bench while referring to the Apex Court's ruling in Ramchander vs. Ananta reported (2015).

The husband argued that the wife began misbehaving shortly after their 1998 marriage, frequently leaving without consent. Allegations included the use of vulgar language and neglect of his parents. In 2003, the wife allegedly deserted the husband, taking their child and belongings. In 2009, the husband sought divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA).

The wife countered, citing accommodation issues at the matrimonial home and the need to care for their daughter. She claimed to stay with her parents for job convenience and childcare, returning to the matrimonial home during vacations or festivals.

The court observed the lack of substantiation for the husband's claims and emphasized that making allegations in a divorce petition wasn't sufficient evidence. It ruled that the alleged accusation of mental illness wasn't proven and couldn't be considered cruelty.

The court also found no proof of physical cruelty and noted the absence of evidence for the desertion claim. It questioned the husband's delay in approaching the court from 2003 to 2009, stating it was unnatural if the desertion occurred in 2003.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's order for judicial separation was set aside, as the grounds for cruelty or desertion were not established.

Case Title: Gopal Ranjan Bandopadhyay @ Gopal Ranjan Banerjee v Smt. Manidipa Banerjee (Talukdar)