In a significant ruling that underscores the essence of a shared life in matrimony, the Calcutta High Court granted divorce to a couple living apart since 2015, stating that "once in a blue moon" visits cannot amount to a shared conjugal life. The judgment, delivered on January 8, emphasized that a marriage stripped of empathy cannot be sustained.
The Core of the Court's Ruling
A division bench comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya dissolved the marriage while allowing the father monthly access to his son. The court held that an irretrievable breakdown of marriage qualifies as cruelty under the Special Marriage Act of 1954. This decision extends a landmark 2023 Supreme Court ruling, which recognized irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce under Hindu marriage law, to cases governed by the secular Special Marriage Act.
Background and the Couple's Separation
The couple had tied the knot in 2007, initially residing in Howrah and welcoming a son in 2011. The wife, a medical professional, had postings in Malda and Birbhum in south-central Bengal before returning to Howrah. She was later posted in Kurseong, located in north Bengal's Darjeeling district. The estrangement began in 2015, after which they lived separately. The wife approached the High Court after a lower court in 2022 refused to grant divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
In her appeal, she argued that they had been living apart since 2015, with the husband making only occasional visits and there being no marital relationship. She also contended that the trial court had improperly blocked testimony from her colleagues about alleged abuse at her workplace, even refusing to allow video-conference evidence citing "insufficient infrastructure"—a reason the High Court later found to be flimsy.
Court's Observations and Final Order
The High Court found the husband's stance contradictory. While he opposed the divorce, he only sought continued access to the child, not reconciliation. The bench noted that the husband admitted to living separately except for stray visits and failed to substantiate claims of brief cohabitation. The court found both cruelty and desertion to be proved.
In its poignant observation, the court stated, "When the convivial atmosphere is lost in a matrimonial relationship and all empathy dries up, nothing remains in the marriage for it to be sustained." It thus declared the marriage irretrievably broken.
As part of the final order, the court granted the husband access to his child. He may meet the son once a month, on the first Sunday, for two hours at a public place.
