Wife’s family, friends in hubby’s place cruelty: HC
Times of India | 23 December 2024
123 Kolkata: A wife's friend and family staying at a husband's place against his will for a continuous period can amount to cruelty, the Calcutta High Court said on Dec 19 while granting divorce to a man on grounds of cruelty.
The divorce application was made by the husband in 2008 after three years of marriage. They got married in Nabadwip and moved to Kolaghat. In the same year, the wife moved to Narkeldanga, claiming it was more convenient for her as she worked at Sealdah. But during cross-examination, she claimed to have moved out due to a "helpless situation".
The husband pleaded cruelty on the grounds that they were living separately and the wife did not intend to return. He also argued that she moved to Uttarpara in 2016 during the pendency of the divorce case. The HC also noted that she moved to Uttarpara rather than Kolaghat, which is also quite a distance away from Sealdah.
He also alleged that she was not interested in a conjugal relationship or having a child. He highlighted the complaint filed by the wife against him and his family a month after he filed for divorce in 2008, where they were acquitted by the trial court.
The husband claimed cruelty on the grounds of being harassed.
The wife accused the husband of being "rude and greedy" who compelled her to hand over her salary to him and had eyes on her mother's pension. The court noted: "The evidence to the contrary belies such allegations. The mother of the respondent would not have lived at the Kolaghat residence of the appellant if he extorted her pension or the respondent's earned money."
The couple got married in 2005 at Nabadwip. They moved to Kolaghat, where the husband worked, in 2006. The wife moved to her service quarters at Narkeldanga in 2008. She then moved to Uttarpara in 2016.
The lower court rejected the man's application for divorce on the mentioned ground.
The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar dismissed the judgment by stating: "The commendable chivalry of the learned Trial Judge is appreciated, but his judgment is not. The entire judgment is tainted with perversity and conjecture and the learned Trial Judge's personal views of matrimonial life, without adverting at all to the particular man and woman before the court." The trial judge opined that the husband should bridge the gap. The division bench found it beyond reason as to why it would be the sacred duty of the husband alone.