Chiranjib Bag Vs Suchandra Bag: Whether Or Not Petty Disputes Can Be Brought Under The Definition Of The Term Cruelty

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10th March, 2021.

JUDGES: Arindam Sinha, Suvra Ghosh

PARTIES

• Chiranjib Bag (Appellant)
• Suchandra Bag (Respondent)

SUMMARY: The instant case deals with the issue of the inclusion of petty disputes under the definition of the term “cruelty” and whether or not divorce can be granted on such grounds.

OVERVIEW

1. The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife by virtue of marriage. Disputes and differences cropped up between the parties which led the appellant to file a petition praying for decree of divorce under Sec. 13(i) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the District Judge, Fast Track court.
2. The contention of the appellant in the aforementioned petition was that the respondent misbehaved with the appellant and his family members and also developed extra marital relationship with many persons.
3. It was further alleged that the respondent insisted that the appellant should stay separately from his family and refused to lead a conjugal life with the appellant, besides torturing him physically and mentally.
4. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement wherein she denied the contention of the appellant and stated that the appellant married her after obtaining a decree of divorce against his first wife.
5. Several efforts of the appellant to bring her back failed and there was no scope for reconciliation between the parties which compelled the appellant to file suit for divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion.
6. The respondent alleged that the appellant and his family members were unhappy with the gold ornaments, furniture, utensils and cash of Rs. 1, 60,000/- given by the widowed mother of the respondent during their marriage and demanded further cash and other valuables from her. The inability of the respondent’s mother to meet the said demand resulted in subjecting the respondent to physical and mental cruelty by the appellant and his family.
7. The District Judge, on hearing both sides of the case, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.
8. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Judge, the appellant had approached the Calcutta High Court seeking a decree for divorce in his favour.

ISSUES

The following were the issues analyzed by the High Court:

• Whether the petition filed by the appellant is maintainable.
• Whether or not petty disputes can be brought under the definition of the term “cruelty”.
• Whether divorce can be given on such grounds.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Sec. 13(i) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Divorce on the grounds of cruelty.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

1. The counsel for the appellant had submitted that he had no intention to press the grounds of adultery and desertion and shall confine his argument to the ground of cruelty.
2. Referring to the averment of the respondent in her written statement as well as her evidence before the learned trial court, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty thrust upon the appellant are out and out false and the allegation of the respondent with regard to sexual incapability of the appellant amounts to mental cruelty.
3. The counsel for the appellant argued that the allegations made out against the appellant by the respondent are baseless, false and fabricated.
4. The appellant has placed reliance upon the authority in Smt. Santana Banerjee v. Sachindra Nath Banerjee1 and Amarendranath Sannyal v. Krishna Sannyal2.
5. The counsel for the respondent urged the court to affirm the view of the District Judge. The counsel submitted before the court that the respondent was driven out of her matrimonial home by the appellant and his family members and was constrained to stay in her parental home. Several false allegations have been made against the respondent by the appellant who refused to accept her when she returned to her matrimonial home.
6. The respondent, the counsel contends, is ready and willing to reunite with the appellant and has also not taken any coercive step against him despite being subjected to cruelty and being deprived of marital life.
7. The respondent sought support for her arguments by quoting the judgments given in the case of Suparna Dalui v. Bidhan Mondal3.
8. The court took the view of the respondent in the present case. The court held that it was the appellant who filed the suit for divorce on a vague allegation of cruelty which was neither explained, nor elaborated. It was the appellant who went to the extent of assassinating the character, morality and sexual capability of the respondent.
9. The court held that the allegations of cruelty has not been substantiated by cogent evidence and even if it is held that there were certain differences between the couple, the definition of cruelty cannot be stretched to such an extent as to include such petty disputes and differences which are part and parcel of a normal married life. The court held that while trying to make out a case of cruelty against the respondent, the appellant had exposed his cruel and impolite attitude towards his wife which seriously affects the dignity and honour of a woman.

CONCLUSION

The crux of the case revolves around the issue of whether or not the definition of cruelty can cover petty disputes between the husband and the wife. The court, in the present case, ruled in the negative.

The court ruled that merely because the respondent did not formally pray for restitution of conjugal rights before a court of law, under no stretch of imagination can it be inferred that she had no intention of resuming conjugal life with the appellant. The court, in the case of Suparna Dalui v. Bidhan Mondal4, ruled that irretrievable break down of marriage has not yet been recognized by law as a ground for divorce. This decision was quoted by the respondent in the present case. The court, taking into cognizance the arguments made by the respondent, ruled in her favour and dismissed the petition by the appellant seeking a divorce. The court, therefore, had to come to the conclusion that the appellant had miserably failed to prove his case and there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned that calls for inference by this court.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement