Takes Two To Quarrel: Calcutta HC Refuses To Grant Divorce To Husband On The Grounds Of Cruelty

The Calcutta High Court has observed that it takes two to quarrel and the same is not sufficient to attribute any ground of cruelty. The Court was considering an appeal filed by a husband against dismissal of the plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the wife.

The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar observed, "In his cross-examination, P.W.2 consistently repeats that there were quarrels between the spouses, that is, the appellant and the respondent. The term “quarrel”, by its very definition, involves two parties. As such, fault cannot be attributed solely to one of the parties for an altercation or quarrel. Thus, the consistent case of P.W.2 in his cross-examination that the spouses quarrelled between themselves is not sufficient to attribute any cruelty to the respondent-wife."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Om Prakash Dubey while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Abhra Mukherjee.

The first plinth of the husband's ground of cruelty is an undated undertaking signed by the respondent-wife. The same was used to argue that the same should be construed as an admission on the part of the respondent wife regarding her cruelty. The Court was however of the view that the said document is unreliable to prove the husband's case of cruelty for several reasons which were stated by it.

The Court clarified that “quarrel” cannot be a basis to raise divorce petition on the grounds of cruelty as it takes both the husband and wife and fault cannot be attributed solely to one. 

The Court also deprecated the "sermonizing" by the Trial Court which had held that the parties must sacrifice their own differences for the sake of their only son to get united again, on which ground the suit should be dismissed, giving another opportunity to the parties to reconcile their differences.

"Such sermonizing, of course, needs to be deprecated, since it is only the parties to the dispute who are the best judges of whether they can live together in view of the skirmishes between themselves," the Court observed.

It also pointed out another fault in the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff failed to prove his case “beyond reasonable shadow of doubt”.

"It is common knowledge that the standard of proof in civil matters, including matrimonial suits, is preponderance of probability and the case of the parties need not be proved to the hilt, beyond reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case," the Court observed.

The Court however agreed that the conclusion of the Trial Judge was otherwise justified since it was the evidence from the discussion of the evidence above that the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove his case of cruelty against the respondent-wife. 

" As such, in view of the above discussions, although we find from the records that the marriage has irretrievably broken down between the parties, the conundrum cannot be helped by this court as the appellant-husband is not entitled in law to a divorce, since the conduct of the respondent has not been proved to come within the ambit of "cruelty‟ as envisaged in law," the Court was observed.

The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Case Number: F.A. No. 53 of 2020

Click here to read/ download Judgement: