Definition of cruelty does not include petty disputes which are part and parcel of married life: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday observed that the term “cruelty” does not include petty disputes and differences which are part and parcel of married life (Chiranjib Bag v. Suchandra Bag)..While doing so, the Court dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of his wife..A Bench of Justices Arindam Sinha and Suvra Ghosh was dealing with an appeal filed by the husband against a family court order which had dismissed his suit praying for a decree of divorce..After taking into consideration the facts of the case, the Court held,"Allegation of cruelty has not been substantiated by cogent evidence and even if it is held that there were certain differences between the couple, the definition of cruelty cannot be stretched to such an extent as to include such petty disputes and differences which are part and parcel of a normal married life.".The Court also expressed its concern over the comments made by the husband to prove that he was the victim of 'cruelty' by the wife."In the case in hand, it was the appellant who filed the suit for divorce on a vague allegation of cruelty which was neither explained, nor elaborated. It was the appellant who went to the extent of assassinating the character, morality and sexual capability of the respondent. If this is not cruelty, then what it is?".Before the High Court, the husband contended that his wife misbehaved with him and his family members, and that she had developed extra-marital relations with several persons. He also claimed that she insisted that her husband stay separately from his family. The wife then left the matrimonial home and lived in her parental home. The husband claimed that despite several attempts to bring her back, she refused to return to the matrimonial home.Further, it was submitted that the wife made false remarks against the husband in the written statement filed in court, and that the same would amount to cruelty. Counsel for the husband relied on the High Court's judgment in Smt. Santana Banerjee v/s. Sachindra Nath Banerjee. .To the contrary, counsel for the wife submitted that the husband married her after obtaining a decree of divorce against his first wife. It was also submitted that dowry demands were made by the husband and his family. The inability of the respondent’s mother to meet the dowry demand led to her being subjected to physical and mental cruelty.The wife also submitted that she willing to reconcile with the husband and return to her matrimonial home, despite her not having filed for restitution of conjugal rights..The Court found that the husband could not substantiate the allegations of cruelty of the part of the wife. On the issue of resuming conjugal ties, the Court observed,"The appellant has very clearly stated that he is not willing to lead a conjugal life with the respondent. The appellant’s father who adduced evidence before the learned trial court has also stated that he does not want the appellant to live with the respondent. Therefore it is crystal clear that despite all efforts by the respondent to return to her matrimonial home and resume conjugal life with the appellant, she was not accepted by the appellant and his family and was compelled to return to her parental home. Merely because the respondent did not formally pray for restitution of conjugal rights before a court of law, under no stretch of imagination can it be inferred that she had no intention of resuming conjugal life with the appellant.".The Court accordingly upheld the order of the family court and dismissed the suit filed by the husband. "Upon consideration of the entire material on record, we are left with no alternative but to come to the conclusion that the appellant has miserably failed to prove his case and there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment impugned that calls for inference by this court.".[Read Judgment]