Husband’s Cruel Conduct Proved Him To Be An ‘Epitome Of Patriarchy’, Throttling Wife’s Aspirations: Calcutta HC While Upholding Divorce Decree

A bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury thus observed, “…we feel no hesitation to hold that the appellant by his conduct has proved himself to be the epitome patriarchi and an utterly insensible person, having no respect for his wife far to speak of love and compassion. He has virtually made his intention clear to trample the promises he made during the marriage. He withdrew himself from the company of his wife and started living separately though in the same house, which can also be considered as his apathy towards his wife and child as well. There was absolute loss of affection. It would be detrimental for the mental and physical health of the respondent if she is asked to live with the appellant”. While noting the wife’s unchallenged testimony the court further observed that it “…demonstrates the cruel nature of her husband who did not have any respect towards his wife. Instead of being supportive, he was instrumental in throttling her aspirations. He failed to accord her with dignity she deserved”.

The appellant-husband appeared in person and Advocate Debasish Roy appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, marriage between the appellant-hushband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on February 18, 2005 according to Hindu Marriage Act following rites and rituals. However, only after the marriage the wife came to know that the husband was a patient of acute asthma and was addicted to alcohol.

As per the statements made by the wife, the husband ill-treated her, misbehaved with her and eventually started abusing both verbally and physically. There were several instances narrated where the wife instead of getting support was restricted from pursuing her dreams. The in-laws were misbehaved with and the husband did not even support her either emotionally or financially during her pregnancy. He even refused to assist the wife financially for their child’s cleft lip’s correctional surgery.

Therefore, noting the unchallenged testimonies of the wife the bench was of the opinion that it ‘unerringly suggests’ that the wife, earned displeasure of her husband when she bagged different jobs, where she was even forced to deposit her entire salary to a joint account. “Such kind of sustained course of abusing and humiliating treatment by the husband should be considered as cruelty. P.W. 1 stated that she wanted to be in the marriage but ultimately she was forced to leave her matrimonial home as she failed to endure torture both physical and mental meted out to her by her husband”.

“Cruelty has not been defined in statute and it gives a very wide discretion to the Court to apply it literally and contextually. What is cruelty to one may not be cruelty to other; it depends upon the upbringing, education and social strata to which the parties belong, their ways of life temperament and emotion that have been conditioned by their social status”, the bench further observed.

According to the bench the husband’s wilful conduct of withdrawing himself from the company of his wife and moved to the upper tier of the duplex, while the wife was staying with the child in the lower tier of the duplex was a clear and categorical expression of the husband’s intention to make the marriage dead. It was further of the opinion that there was every reason to presume that the opposite party (in the original petition) husband had the animus deserendi, pursuant to which he ultimately assaulted the wife and drove her out with the child.

While refusing the custody of the child to the husband, the bench observed, “Be that as it may, non-payment of maintenance to the minor son and at the same time non-submission of affidavit to substantiate the claim that he has been paying maintenance to his minor son regularly, the appellant has exhibited his apathy towards the child. Therefore, he cannot be held to be a fit person to have the custody of the child. Taking into consideration the paramount welfare of the child we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Trial Court in rejecting the petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant”.

Cause Title: Manojit Basu v. Shyamasree Basu