Wife Making Allegations Of Mental Illness Against Husband's Mother Not 'Cruelty': Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea For Marriage Dissolution
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed an appeal by a husband challenging the decision of the trial court which dismissed his prayer for dissolution of marriage with his wife, granting him a decree of judicial separation instead. The petitioner/husband had alleged that the wife had committed acts of 'mental cruelty' by alleging that the petitioner's mother had a mental...
The Calcutta High Court has recently dismissed an appeal by a husband challenging the decision of the trial court which dismissed his prayer for dissolution of marriage with his wife, granting him a decree of judicial separation instead.
The petitioner/husband had alleged that the wife had committed acts of 'mental cruelty' by alleging that the petitioner's mother had a mental illness, misbehaving with her in-laws, and had also deserted the petitioner by taking away their daughter and leaving the matrimonial home.
A division bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Madhuresh Prasad held:
The issue of mental illness has not been established or proved with any material in the trial. Such allegation, per se cannot be viewed to constitute an act of mental cruelty. There is also nothing on record to show that the petitioner at any time prior to filing of the suit in question had objected to the respondent residing with her parents, or made any efforts to bring her back to the matrimonial home.
It was argued by the petitioner that within a few days of their marriage in 1998, the respondent began misbehaving with him and his parents and frequently left the matrimonial home without 'consent.'
It was submitted that she frequently used filthy language and neglected the petitioner's parents when he was away while refusing to mend her ways.
It was argued that in 2003, the respondent suddenly deserted the petitioner and left the matrimonial home with all her belongings and the minor child and never returned.
In 2009, the petitioner brought an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act ('HMA') praying for divorce by dissolving their marriage.
The respondent on the other hand argued that there was a paucity of accommodation at the matrimonial home. She claimed that for the convenience of attending to her job as a teacher and to take better care of her minor daughter, she stayed at her father's house, since in her absence there was no one to take care of the daughter.
It was submitted that when the daughter attained 2-3 years of age, she returned to her husband's house, but again due to difficulties, she stayed with her parents but would come to her matrimonial home during vacations or festivals.
Respondent argued that she did not wish to abandon her matrimonial obligations or use any filthy language against her in-laws but that the petitioner's sister was persistent in her efforts to break their marriage.
It was argued that she had been residing in her parent's home pursuant to a mutual decision made with her husband and that soon after their marriage she realised that the petitioner's mother was a mental patient.
In reply, the petitioner's counsel submitted that 'acts' of cruelty could be subtle, and that alleging mental illness of the petitioner's mother itself amounted to an act of cruelty.
It was thus argued that the twin grounds under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA had been proved and that the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce by dissolution.
It was noted that the parties had mutually agreed to the respondent staying at her parent's house from 2000-2009 and the petitioner had not withdrawn consent for the same.
Court observed that the petitioner had not been able to substantiate his pleadings and that merely making averments alleging cruelty in the petition for divorce cannot be taken by the Court to be sufficient for finding existence of such grounds as pleaded.
It was held that the issue of mental illness had not been established during the trial and that such an allegation could not per se constitute cruelty. Court held:
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.
It further observed that there was no material on record to prove instances of physical cruelty inflicted by the respondent on the petitioner or her in-laws as well and that the petitioner had not even examined his parents during trial to prove these allegations.
On the allegation of desertion, the Court noted that the period claimed began in 2003, and that the petitioner had not paid maintenance or enquired about their daughter between 2000-2003 or even knew about his wife suffering from breast cancer or undergoing surgery for the same.
Court noted that there was no material to prove that the petitioner had objected to the respondent residing with her parents, and thus a case for desertion was not made out.
It is also not clear as to why the petitioner waited from 2003 to 2009. If the respondent would have deserted the petitioner in 2003, it is quite unnatural conduct that the petitioner would have waited six years or more after desertion, before approaching the Court for dissolution of marriage. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that desertion as contemplated under the Act, has also not been established by the petitioner, the Court held.
Accordingly, the husband's appeal was dismissed and the court also set aside the trial court's order for judicial separation, since grounds for cruelty or desertion had not been made out.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 2
Case No: FA 9 of 2016
Case: Gopal Ranjan Bandopadhyay @ Gopal Ranjan Banerjee v Smt. Manidipa Banerjee (Talukdar)