Once in blue moon visits not equal to living conjugal life with wife: HC
Times of India | 12 January 2026
Kolkata: Visiting "once in a blue moon" cannot be equated with living a conjugal life together as husband and wife, the Calcutta High Court observed on Jan 8 while granting divorce to a couple living separately since 2015. The court also granted visitation rights to the father, noting his refusal to agree to a divorce was because he did not want to be detached from his son.
The division bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya also stated that "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" under cruelty is a valid ground for divorce under the Special Marriage Act as well.
It noted that the SC's landmark judgment of 2023 was given in the context of section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act: "...since the language of the said section is similar to section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which governs the parties in the instant case, the same ratio applies to the present case as well," the HC held.
The woman, a medical professional posted in Kurseong since 2015, moved HC after a trial court refused to grant divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion in 2022. They got married in 2007, resided in Howrah, and had a son in 2011. Between 2007 and 2011, the wife was posted in Malda and Birbhum, after which, she returned to Howrah in 2011.
Her case was that the couple lived separately since 2015. The husband visited occasionally, but they did not have any relationship as a married couple, she claimed. She stated that, to prove her case of cruelty, she sought permission from the trial court to submit evidence from her colleagues at Kurseong about her husband coming to her workplace and abusing her, but this was not allowed, citing "insufficient infrastructure".
The division bench, in contrast to the trial court's order, stated that instances of desertion and cruelty were proven. It noted that the husband did not deny living separately apart from stray visits, and could not substantiate his claims of living together with his wife briefly.
The bench noted that evidence through video conference was rejected by the trial judge on flimsy grounds, and such denial should affect the wife's case.
The HC pointed out the contradiction in the husband's written statement, where he said he did not want divorce, but, on the other hand, asserted that he may be allowed to keep contact with his son (as opposed to his wife), take information about his whereabouts and education, and talk with him.
"Hence, the refusal of the husband to accede to a divorce is premised on his rights to meet his son and not on the subsistence of a happy conjugal relationship between the parties. Hence, from the materials on record and the pleadings, this court is of the clear opinion that the marriage between the parties broke down irretrievably."
The HC granted visitation rights to the husband, stating he can visit the son once a month on the first Sunday for two hours between 3 pm and 5 pm in any public place within 2 km of the wife's residence.