In a significant ruling that clarifies the legal grounds for divorce, the Calcutta High Court has underscored that desertion holds greater weight than cruelty in marriages that have irretrievably broken down. The court made this observation while upholding a divorce decree granted solely on the ground of desertion, dismissing an appeal by a woman challenging the 2017 trial court order.
The Case: A Marriage in Name Only Since 2007
The bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing an appeal filed by the wife against the divorce granted by the family court. The couple had married in 2001 and had a son in 2003. However, their marital life effectively ended, with the parties living separately since 2007.
The husband had initiated divorce proceedings twice before—in 2005 and 2007—but later withdrew both petitions in an attempt to salvage the relationship. He filed for the third time in 2017, citing grounds of both cruelty and desertion. The trial court, however, granted the divorce exclusively on the basis of desertion, a decision the wife contested.
Court's Reasoning: Why Desertion Took Precedence
The High Court delivered a detailed judgment, dismissing the wife's appeal and reinforcing the trial court's decision. The bench provided several key reasons for its ruling.
First, the court adopted a pragmatic view, noting a consistent judicial trend to respect the differences between spouses and not force them to cohabit amidst prolonged acrimony. The marriage had suffered a continuous severance of the matrimonial tie for about 18 years.
Second, the court elaborated that an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, while not a standalone ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, is a component of cruelty. However, in this prolonged breakdown, the elements of desertion were found to be more pronounced. "Irretrievable breakdown of marriage for a prolonged period between the parties has more elements of desertion than cruelty," the bench stated, adding that the parties had, for all practical purposes, deserted each other with no intention to restore conjugal life.
Third, the court found no legal or factual error in the trial court's order. It emphasized that the ground of desertion was firmly established by the irretrievable breakdown lasting nearly two decades, rendering the marriage "beyond repair."
Scrutiny of Conduct: Withdrawal of Cases and Lack of Effort
The judgment closely examined the conduct of both parties. The husband's act of withdrawing the two earlier divorce petitions was seen as an attempt to sustain the marital bond. Conversely, the court noted a critical failing on the wife's part: there was no evidence on record to show she made any attempt to resume conjugal life with her husband between the withdrawal of the second case in 2007 and the filing of the present case in 2017.
Furthermore, while the wife levied several allegations against the husband, including failure to look after her and their son, the court held that she failed to prove any act of cruelty that could justify her living separately for over a decade. The allegations were deemed insufficient to substantiate her prolonged abstinence from the husband's company.
Arguments from Both Sides
During the appeal, the wife's advocate, Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay, argued that the husband did not approach the court with "clean hands" as he himself had deserted the wife and could not benefit from his own wrong. He also contended that the trial court erred legally and factually and that irretrievable breakdown is not a direct ground for divorce under the law.
Appearing for the husband, advocate Amrita Panja countered that the withdrawal of previous cases did not negate the wife's desertion. She stressed that her client waited for a decade after 2007, during which the estranged wife made no effort to restore the marital relationship, thus solidifying the ground of desertion.
Broader Implications of the Judgment
This ruling provides crucial clarity for family law in India. It establishes a judicial precedent that in cases of long-term marital breakdown, desertion can be a more substantial and decisive factor than allegations of cruelty, especially when one party demonstrates a complete absence of effort to reconcile over many years.
The Calcutta High Court's decision reinforces the principle that courts will take a realistic view of dead marriages, prioritizing the factual reality of separation and desertion over other contested claims when the relationship has clearly ended for all practical purposes.
