False charges against spouse constitute mental cruelty: Calcutta High Court

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has granted a decree of divorce to a husband, holding that false and unsubstantiated allegations of serious marital abuse, particularly when contradicted by the maker’s own evidence, amount to mental cruelty under matrimonial law.

The Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya allowed the husband’s appeal and set aside a trial court judgment that had earlier dismissed his divorce suit.

The marriage was solemnised on March 10, 2010. Court records showed that the wife left the matrimonial home on January 20, 2011, and the parties had not lived together thereafter. No child was born from the marriage.

The husband had sought annulment or, alternatively, divorce on the ground of cruelty. The trial court dismissed the suit, questioning medical documents produced by the husband and holding that allegations of cruelty were not corroborated by neighbours or independent witnesses.

Reversing that decision, the High Court found that the trial court failed to consider crucial admissions made by the wife during cross-examination. While the wife and her father alleged that she was assaulted during pregnancy and taken for treatment to RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, the wife herself admitted in evidence that she had never visited that hospital. The court noted that no medical document was produced to support the allegation of assault or loss of pregnancy.

The Bench held that such serious allegations, made without proof and contradicted by the wife’s own testimony, amounted to cruelty towards the husband. The court also examined medical documents produced by the husband showing that the wife had undergone repeated treatment for psychiatric issues at Bongaon Hospital, Barasat District Hospital, the Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, and Pavlov Hospital.

The records referred to conditions described as depression, aggression and sleeplessness. The Bench recorded that the wife admitted having seen these documents and stated that she had no objection to them during cross-examination.

The High Court held that the trial court erred in discarding the medical documents solely on the ground that the treating doctors were not examined as witnesses.

The Bench observed that incidents occurring within the privacy of a matrimonial home may not always be witnessed by neighbours and that testimony of close family members cannot be rejected merely because of their relationship if it remains unshaken.

The High Court also noted that the parties had been living separately for more than 14 years, with no attempt at reconciliation during the pendency of the proceedings. On the facts of the case, the court held that such prolonged separation reinforced the finding of cruelty.