Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce To Husband On Grounds Of Cruelty; Slams Trial Judge For “Patriarchal & Condescending Approach”
|The Calcutta High Court allowed an Appeal against the ex parte dismissal of the husband’s suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
The Calcutta High Court set aside the decision of the Trial Court springing from the "patriarchal and condescending approach" of the Trial Judge, while granting divorce to a husband on the grounds of cruelty.
The Court allowed an Appeal filed by a husband against the decision of the Trial Court, which dismissed the husband’s suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion by the wife. The Trial Judge, in his judgment, observed that “no doubt, the wife is fond of making derogative and ugly remarks against her husband which amounts to mental cruelty justifying the decree of divorce” but that “it was the helpless lamentation of the lady urging for a blissful happy life.”
A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar remarked, “The entire mindset of the learned Trial Judge appears to spring up from a patriarchal and condescending approach, thereby attributing a condescending role to the husband, to advice his wife properly and also to condone cruel acts of the wife by trying to “bridge the gap” between the parties.”
Advocates Angshuman Chakraborty and Shivaji Mitra appeared for the Appellant..
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court remarked, “The learned Trial Judge held that “how far it is ironical to the lady or it is so fortunate to the husband” he was “not prepared to comment”. He further observed that “what was being the task of the husband was to pacify the rage and anger of his wife indeed as a matter of fact from the evidence of her husband no where it has been distinctly and clearly proved that he was really conscious to be tracked properly” (whatever it means).”
“The learned Trial Judge further gives his solicitous advice to the effect that although it is quite reasonable and sensible to appreciate even in a trifling difference of opinion the parties can desert themselves voluntarily “transactional period” but that in such circumstances there must be reasonable and sensible role from the side of the husband to bridge the gap,” the Bench further remarked.
The Court criticised the Trial Judge’s handling of the case noting that the "learned Trial Judge overlooked the fact that the respondent/wife did not adduce any evidence of her own despite having filed a written statement and also did not cross-examine PW1 (the plaintiff/husband)...learned Judge proceeded entirely on a tangential perception of his own, without adverting at all to the materials on record."
The Bench stated its "intention to observe here that we are just stopping short of making any serious adverse comment against the learned Trial Judge, merely because such comment could have an adverse effect on the service career of the learned Judge."
However, the Court pointed out that "we expect that the learned Judge concerned shall be aware in future about copy-pasting his previous judgments and in going on his own tangential curve of wishful imagination instead of adverting to the facts and materials on record in the particular case before him." The order explicitly warned that "If any future instance of such act on the part of the learned Trial Judge is noticed, the same may be directed to be entered into his service book."
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, FAT 264 of 2022 is allowed ex parte, thereby setting aside the impugned judgment and ex parte decree dated February 17, 2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court at Sealdah, District – South 24 Parganas in Matrimonial Suit No. 227 of 2015. A decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty is hereby granted to the plaintiff/appellant against the defendant/respondent.”
Cause Title: X v. Y (FAT 264 of 2022)