The Calcutta High Court has strongly criticized a trial court judgment that denied a husband’s plea for divorce in a case marked by serious allegations of cruelty and desertion by the wife. The High Court, comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, overturned the trial court’s order and granted divorce to the husband, highlighting several legal and procedural lapses by the trial judge.
The case revolved around the husband’s claim that his wife had been cruel and had deserted him. The trial judge had dismissed the suit, despite the wife failing to present evidence or cross-examine the husband. The High Court noted this as a fundamental flaw, remarking that the trial judge had ignored the material on record and proceeded based on personal assumptions.
Read Also:- Calcutta High Court Upholds Automatic Compensation for Dependents of Deceased Workers
“The entire mindset of the learned Trial Judge appears to spring up from a patriarchal and condescending approach,” the High Court stated, emphasizing that the judge appeared to expect the husband to "advise" his wife and overlook her cruel conduct.
The High Court also found the trial judge guilty of repeatedly using the same phrases and reasoning in various matrimonial judgments, suggesting a habit of copy-pasting decisions. This undermined the independence and integrity of judicial reasoning in matrimonial cases.
Further, the bench pointed out that the wife’s denials in the written statement were vague and lacked any substantive explanation. Notably, she did not clarify why she stayed at her parental home and avoided returning to the matrimonial home. The High Court also observed that she avoided mediation and court hearings multiple times, reflecting a lack of interest in reconciling or participating in the legal proceedings.
“Despite filing a written statement, the wife did not produce evidence or cross-examine the husband, which, in law, implies that the husband’s claims stand unrefuted,” the court noted.
The judgment detailed specific incidents, including the wife publicly defaming her husband and encouraging their son to develop negative views about him. Even during critical times—such as when the husband's mother was seriously ill—the wife showed limited concern, highlighting further emotional estrangement.
Read Also:- Calcutta High Court Quashes Rule Penalising Consumers for Exceeding Electricity Limits
The trial judge, rather than focusing on the legal merits, relied on subjective interpretations and even used abstract philosophical expressions. He speculated about the wife’s remaining affection for her husband and described the husband’s divorce petition as arising from “erotic passion”—remarks which the High Court found baseless and outside the legal framework.
“Realistically speaking, the mind of the lady has been mutilated yet she does not wish to relinquish her dream,” the trial court had written—language the High Court deemed inappropriate and fictional.
