The Calcutta High Court has granted a decree of divorce to a husband whose marriage had remained practically defunct for nearly 20 years, holding that an irretrievably broken marriage can amount to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. Setting aside the trial court's judgment, the Division Bench concluded that keeping such a marriage alive would only prolong hardship for both spouses. The ruling follows the legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Sri Sanjib Tarafdar against Smt. Mausumi Tarafdar after the trial court dismissed his matrimonial suit seeking either a declaration that the marriage was void due to alleged non-consummation or, alternatively, a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The couple married on January 28, 2007, but separated less than two months later. The husband instituted the matrimonial suit in April 2007, and the trial court eventually dismissed it in 2022. Before the High Court, he argued that the marriage had completely failed, the parties had lived apart for almost two decades, and mediation had also failed.
The husband also sought to rely on photocopies of certain medical prescriptions to contend that the wife suffered from a psychiatric condition. However, those documents had not been exhibited during the trial because the originals were unavailable.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench first examined the husband's original grounds for relief and agreed with the trial court that they had not been established.
On the allegation that the marriage had never been consummated, the Court found that the husband's own testimony during cross-examination contradicted his case.
Similarly, the Bench held that the plea of desertion was unavailable because the suit had been filed within the statutory period prescribed under law. The allegations of cruelty against the wife were also found unsupported by independent evidence.
The Court also declined to accept the photocopied medical prescriptions as additional evidence.
It observed that no legal foundation had been laid for admitting secondary evidence and, in any case, the prescriptions merely referred to symptoms such as anxiety and disturbed sleep. The Bench held that these documents did not establish any serious psychiatric disorder that could justify a decree of divorce.
As the judges noted,
"Anxiety, disturbed sleep and the like... cannot be construed to be a psychiatric disorder as such."
Irretrievable Breakdown Became the Decisive Factor
Although the husband failed on his original grounds, the High Court turned to the issue of the marriage having completely broken down over time.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, the Bench noted that while "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" is not an independent statutory ground for divorce, the Supreme Court has recognised that a marriage which has become beyond repair can itself amount to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The judges observed,
"Keeping the façade of the broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties."
Applying that principle, the Court noted that mediation had failed, the parties had not resumed cohabitation since 2007, they had lived together only for about two months, and there was no child from the marriage.
"The marriage between the parties is a mere deadwood," the Bench remarked while concluding that there was no intention on either side to restore the matrimonial relationship.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Calcutta High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband on the ground of cruelty arising from the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the wife remains free to seek permanent alimony by filing an application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the appropriate trial court, which will decide the claim independently in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Sri Sanjib Tarafdar v. Smt. Mausumi Tarafdar
Case Number: F.A.T. 234 of 2022
Judge: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
Decision Date: 23 July 2026
