Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Amounts to Cruelty, Grounds for Divorce: Calcutta HC

Calcutta: The Calcutta High Court has held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and by itself furnishes a valid ground for divorce, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita.

A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya allowed a husband's appeal against a trial court judgment that had dismissed his suit for nullity of marriage or, alternatively, divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, and granted him a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty arising from the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28th January 2007. The parties separated on or about 24th March 2007, and the husband instituted the matrimonial suit on 13th April 2007, seeking a declaration that the marriage was a nullity for non-consummation, or in the alternative, divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment dated 30th April 2022, prompting the present appeal.

For the husband, it was argued that no attempt had been made by either party to resume the conjugal relationship throughout the period of separation, so that animus revertendi was entirely absent, and that the Trial Judge ought to have held that consummation could not be established on account of the wife's wilful refusal. It was further argued that photocopies of the wife's medical prescriptions, tendered to show she suffered from a psychiatric disorder, ought to have been admitted as secondary evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, since the originals were not in the husband's possession and the wife had declined to permit their exhibition. Most significantly, it was submitted that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, as evidenced by a mediator's report dated 4th December 2025 recording the parties' unwillingness to settle, cohabitation of only about two months against a separation of nearly two decades, and the Supreme Court's rulings in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, (2023) 17 SCC 433, and the unreported decision in Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty, Civil Appeal No.5167 of 2012, both of which granted divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

For the wife, it was submitted that the husband's own cross-examination as PW1, dated 25th June 2015, contained a double-negative admission that the marriage had in fact been consummated, defeating the nullity plea, and that his cross-examination dated 19th July 2016 similarly amounted to an admission that mental and physical torture had been inflicted upon the wife, defeating his own cruelty case against her. It was denied that the wife possessed the originals of the medical prescriptions, and it was submitted that the documents in any case did not establish any psychiatric disorder. Despite nearly two decades of separation, the wife maintained that she remained willing to resume conjugal life, and denied that the marriage had broken down irretrievably.

The Court found that the ground of nullity had not been established, since the husband's own cross-examination pointed the other way, and agreed with the trial court that the allegations of cruelty against the wife lacked corroborative evidence. On desertion, the Court held that the suit, having been filed within the statutory moratorium period, could not sustain a decree on that ground in any event. As for the medical prescriptions, the Court held that no foundational case had been made out for admission of secondary evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) of the Code, and that, in any event, one of the prescriptions, dated 24th March 2007, diagnosed only anxiety and disturbed sleep, which the Court held was too common a condition to qualify as a psychiatric disorder justifying divorce.

Turning to irretrievable breakdown, the Court noted that although the Hindu Marriage Act does not itself recognise it as a ground for divorce, the Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita had held that a marriage which has broken down irretrievably inflicts cruelty on both parties, thereby falling within Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Holding that this proposition, laid down under Article 141 of the Constitution, was binding law, the Court extracted the relevant passage:

“Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage may not be a ground for dissolution of marriage, under the Hindu Marriage Act, but cruelty is… In our considered opinion, a marital relationship which has only become more bitter and acrimonious over the years, does nothing but inflict cruelty on both the sides. To keep the façade of this broken marriage alive would be doing injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down irretrievably, in our opinion spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty.”

The Court distinguished the unreported Nayan Bhowmick decision relied upon by the husband, holding that it did not lay down any binding proposition of law, since the Supreme Court had exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice between the parties in that case, a power unavailable to the High Courts or District Courts.

Applying the ratio in Rakesh Raman to the facts, the Court noted that mediation between the parties had admittedly failed, that no effort had been made by either side over nearly two decades to resume the conjugal relationship, that there was no child of the marriage, and that the parties had cohabited for only about two months before their separation. The Court held:

“Thus, animus revertendi being entirely missing on the part of both parties in the present case, it cannot but be held that the marriage between the parties is a mere deadwood.”

Holding that the trial court ought to have granted divorce on the ground of cruelty in view of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 30th April 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Tenth Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in Matrimonial Suit No.40 of 2007, and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband on the ground of cruelty. Any interim orders were vacated, and the Court clarified that the wife would remain free to seek permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the trial court, which would adjudicate any such application on its own merits after affording both parties an opportunity to file pleadings and materials. No order was made as to costs.

Appearances: Mr. Chittaranjan Panda, Mr. Narayan Chandra Bhandary, Mr. Subhendra Mohan Saha and Mrs. Satabdi Bhattacharya, Advocates appeared for the appellant. Mr. Suranjan Mandal and Ms. Mousumi Biswas, Advocates appeared for the respondent.

Case Title: Sri Sanjib Tarafdar v. Smt. Mausumi Tarafdar | F.A.T. 234 of 2022 |