6 min readNew DelhiAug 24, 2026 01:09 PM IST
The Calcutta High Court has upheld a divorce decree in favour of a husband, holding that his wife’s insistence on living separately from his dependent widowed mother, coupled with a series of serious but baseless allegations against him and his family, amounted to mental cruelty.
Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya, however, stressed that a wife’s desire for a separate home cannot by itself be treated as cruelty, observing that Indian society has moved beyond the patriarchal notion that a wife is duty-bound to serve her husband and his family.
The court said the demand for separate living had to be examined in the context of the husband’s dependent mother and the wife’s allegations against her, which the court found to be completely unsupported by evidence. The court also noted that the couple had lived together for about five years after their 2009 marriage but had remained separated since December 2014.
“Moreover, society has evolved much over the past decade, after the said judgment was rendered, and has progressed substantially beyond the patriarchal and conservative mind-set that it is the noble duty of the wife to serve the husband and his family and a wife cannot insist upon exclusive conjugal life with her husband, particularly in the context of the modern-day unitary families,” the August order stated, adding that such a liberal approach cannot be taken to an extreme.
The wife claimed that they got married in June 2009 under the Special Marriage Act and had a child in April 2013. She claimed that their marriage did not suffer from any misunderstanding until then. The wife also claimed that even after she had to leave the matrimonial home in April 2014, she returned several times and, on such occasions, they lived together as husband and wife for seven to eight days at a time.
‘Mistreatment by mother-in-law’
Advocate Sanjay Mukherjee, one of the counsels representing the wife, argued that she had requested a separate residence, away from the matrimonial home, which does not automatically translate to cruelty. He claimed that the wife sought separation from the husband’s mother only to protect her child from serious mistreatment by the mother-in-law.
The wife argued that simply filing criminal cases cannot amount to cruelty, stating that she lodged a criminal case against her husband following a specific incident after their separation in February 2016. She added that she went to her husband’s business premises with her minor child during heavy rain to ask for an umbrella/raincoat for the child, but he allegedly used abusive language and misbehaved with her.
Story continues below this ad
She added that irretrievable breakdown, by itself, is not a ground for divorce under the Special Marriage Act or under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the husband declined to continue the married relationship despite her wanting to resume the same.
On the other hand, the husband, through advocate Shyamal Chakraborty, submitted that the wife’s insistence was to sever the ties with his widowed mother, who is dependent on him. It was further argued that the wife’s threats of false police cases against the husband and his family amounted to coercion to achieve her purposes, which constitutes mental cruelty.
He added that the wife used to repeatedly visit his business place despite his objection, creating public disturbance, using filthy language, damaging the telephone and other instruments in front of customers and demeaning his dignity and goodwill in front of outsiders.
The husband added that he has not sought divorce on the ground of desertion but on cruelty, and a few stray incidents of the wife coming back and residing together do not mitigate the consistent cruelty meted out by her in separating from him for considerable periods without justification.
Story continues below this ad
Woman’s claims unsupported: HC
Pointing out that the Indian law on mental cruelty as a ground for divorce has undergone an evolution over decades, the court clarified that certain common underlying features of cruelty can be extracted from the judgments cited by the couple in their case.
“There cannot be any exhaustive list of situations where it can be said that there is mental cruelty; the court has to assess the entire matrimonial life of the parties on the anvil of their respective social status, educational background and other similar circumstances,” it added.
Noting the woman’s claim of alleged molestation of her minor son by her mother-in-law, the court found that the allegation was completely unsupported by evidence and uncorroborated. It noted that although the wife had lodged police complaints on different occasions, she did not approach the police, any child welfare authority or any other person who could be produced as a witness regarding the alleged conduct.
The court held that the wife’s insistence on having a separate home would indeed amount to cruelty. “Separate living for its own sake has its place but cannot be isolated from the family background of the spouses,” it said. The judges noted that the husband lives with his widowed mother, who is dependent on him, and held that, in the circumstances of the present case, separation for its own sake would amount to cruelty on the part of the wife.
Story continues below this ad
It also found that the credibility of the wife, as a witness, was shaken on several counts and that this had become a pattern. It noted, among other things, that although she denied that her husband had arranged her medical treatment, she admitted during cross-examination that he had arranged treatment for her at several hospitals.
The court ultimately held that the wife had consistently made serious but baseless allegations against her husband and his family, which amounted to mental cruelty. It concluded that she was guilty of mental cruelty, furnishing a valid ground for divorce.
