Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pintu Mahata vs Swarnalata Mahata on 9 March, 2026
Author: Supratim Bhattacharya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Supratim Bhattacharya
In the High Court at Calcutta
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
F.A.T. No. 443 of 2023
Pintu Mahata
Vs.
Swarnalata Mahata
For the appellant : Mr. D.K. Adhikari,
Mr. Tarapada Das,
Mr. Debdeep Adhikary
For the respondent : Mr. Debrup Choudhury,
Mr. Arkaprabho Roy
Heard on : 19.02.2026 & 26.02.2026
Reserved on : 26.02.2026
Judgment on : 09.03.2026
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-
1. The appellant-husband has preferred the instant appeal, assailing the
dismissal of his divorce suit against the respondent-wife, filed on the ground
of mental cruelty.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-husband argues that the
learned Trial Judge failed to take into consideration the serious allegations
made by the respondent-wife against the appellant and his family members
2in her written statement, which were unsubstantiated in evidence. At least
three instances of such allegations are specifically pointed out to the Court.
3. The respondent pleaded in her written statement that on February 15, 2019,
the family members of the appellant had tried to kill her second daughter,
which was the culmination of physical and mental torture perpetrated upon
her by the appellant and his family due to the birth of the second female
child of the respondent.
4. The respondent also alleged in her written statement that the appellant
addressed the respondent in filthy language and instigated other persons to
“temper” and to give immoral proposals to the respondent by giving her
mobile number to them.
5. Thirdly, the respondent also alleged in her written statement that the
appellant had an illicit relation with a lady named Sangita Mahata for the
couple of years prior to the filing of her written statement, due to which the
respondent was also subjected to physical and mental torture.
6. Alleging such physical and mental torture meted out by the appellant and
his family, the respondent also lodged a complaint with the local police
station, which gave rise to Simlapal Police Station Case No. 24 of 2020 dated
May 19, 2020 under Sections 498A, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
7. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that none of the said
allegations were corroborated by any material evidence. The criminal case
lodged by the respondent, it is submitted, is still pending.
3
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant takes the court through the
evidence of the respondent and her mother, respectively as DW-1 and DW-2.
It is pointed out that although the respondent had alleged that her second
daughter was sought to be killed by the appellant and his family members
on February 15, 2019, she admitted in her cross-examination that she did
not return to her matrimonial house after December 15, 2018. DW-2, her
mother, stated in her cross-examination, however, that the respondent
continued to reside at her matrimonial home after the birth of her second
female child till the said child was three months old.
9. The first daughter was born of the parties’ wedlock on May 8, 2016 and the
second on November 17, 2018, thus taking the said three months’ period
after the birth of the second daughter to around February 15, 2019.
However, the appellant argues that by the inherent contradiction between
the said two statements of DW-1 and DW-2, they demolished each other’s
evidence.
10. With regard to the alleged illicit affair of the appellant, DW-1 had merely
stated in her evidence about such affair, without furnishing any further
detail. Moreover, no independent witness came forward to establish such
alleged illicit relation, apart from the wife herself as DW-1 and her mother as
DW-2.
11. Thus, it is argued that the false and baseless allegations of the respondent
in her written statement, by themselves, tantamounted to mental cruelty
against the husband, on which ground alone the learned Trial Judge ought
to have decreed the suit for divorce.
4
12. Learned counsel for the appellant cites Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v.
Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, reported at AIR 2003 SC 2462, in support of the
proposition that if allegations are made in the pleadings which are of such
quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and
suffering amounting to cruelty, causing profound and lasting disruption in
the matrimonial life, such conduct itself amounts to cruelty.
13. Learned counsel also relies on K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, reported at
(2013) 5 SCC 226, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that making
unfounded indecent and defamatory allegations against the spouse or
his/her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints which may have an
adverse impact on the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints
amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse.
14. It is further argued that the appellant substantiated his case of acts of
mental cruelty by the respondent, in refusing to do household work and ill-
behaving with her in-laws, by adducing evidence in support of such
pleadings. The learned Trial Judge, it is contended, failed to consider in
proper perspective such evidence to dismiss the suit.
15. It is argued by the appellant that he is a CISF employee, which is a part of
the disciplined forces, and the serious allegations made in the pleadings of
the respondent-wife might adversely affect the job of the appellant.
Moreover, the consistent false allegations and cruel behaviour of the wife, it
is argued, led to mental cruelty against the appellant.
16. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Trial Judge
proceeded on the premise that the appellant did not file any application
5
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights
to show his intention to bring back the respondent-wife. However, such
premise is legally erroneous, since the filing of a restitution suit is not a pre-
requisite for establishing mental cruelty of the other spouse and non-filing of
such a proceeding could not come in the way of granting a divorce in favour
of the appellant.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that there was no specific
cross-examination on the allegations of the wife relating to the illicit
relationship of the husband, the attempt on the part of his family to kill the
second daughter of the parties and regarding the husband inciting others to
make indecent proposals to the respondent-wife over mobile phone. In the
absence of counter suggestions in the cross-examination of the respondent
and her mother by the appellant, such allegations ought to have been held
to be premised on reasonable basis. Thus, such allegations did not amount
to cruelty.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent next places before the Court the
averments made in Paragraph No. 11 of the written statement to show that
the respondent denied the plaint allegation that she had left her
matrimonial home suddenly on December 15, 2018. In Paragraph No. 15 of
the written statement, the respondent specifically alleged that the family
members of the appellant-husband perpetrated cruelty against the
respondent due to the birth of her second female child and on February 15,
2019 had tried to kill the daughter, when the respondent somehow managed
6
to rescue the child and ran away from her matrimonial home. Again, in her
evidence, the respondent substantiated her allegations.
19. It is next contended by the respondent that the appellant utterly failed to
substantiate the plaint allegations of the respondent having perpetrated
mental cruelty against the appellant and his family. Rather, in an
application made by the appellant-husband before the Sub-Divisional
Officer at Khatra, bearing Case No. 22 of 2019, the appellant admitted that
the parties were living peacefully together at least till December 15, 2018.
Thus, the said statement belied the appellant’s plaint allegations of the
respondent-wife having done cruel acts against the appellant and his family
during her stay in her matrimonial home. Accordingly, it is argued that the
learned Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit for divorce.
20. It is also argued that there was no independent witness apart from the
appellant-husband who substantiated the allegations of cruelty made in the
plaint.
21. Lastly, on instruction, learned counsel for the respondent-wife candidly
submits that the respondent is otherwise willing to sever the matrimonial
tie; however, in view of the divorce having been sought by the husband on
the basis of several allegations of cruelty by the wife, in the event divorce is
granted on the basis of the plaint case, the respondent-wife would suffer
ignominy and social stigma.
22. During arguments, the appellant categorically alleges and the respondent
tacitly agrees that the matrimonial tie between the parties has broken down
beyond repair. Hence, the court put both parties on notice that it may
7
consider the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v.
Kavita, reported at (2023) 17 SCC 433, in such context. However, specific
arguments were not advanced on the said judgment by either of the parties.
23. Upon having heard learned counsel for the parties, the court comes to the
following conclusions:
24. Insofar as the allegations levelled in the plaint in respect of alleged cruelty
by the respondent during her stay in her matrimonial home, we find that the
learned Trial Judge was justified in observing that the said allegations could
not substantiated by the appellant-husband by independent corroborative
evidence. Some of the allegations, evidently, are vague in nature and do not
come within the purview of mental cruelty, such as the respondent-wife not
being willing to do household work and behaving improperly, without any
explanation as to whether the latter fell within the ambit of regular wear and
tear of matrimonial life or not. That apart, as rightly observed by the learned
Trial Judge, no specific date or instance of cruelty was mentioned in the
appellant-husband’s plaint.
25. Although an apparent acquaintance of the appellant-husband adduced
evidence as PW-2, he admitted in his cross-examination that he came to
know about the incidents relating to the case the day before he adduced
evidence, which would relegate his knowledge of the facts of the case to
hearsay at best. On recall, PW-2 tried to salvage the damage done in his
cross-examination. However, he reiterated again that it was not a fact that
the respondent-wife used to quarrel with the family members of the
appellant-husband. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 does not inspire confidence,
8
nor could it be held to be sufficient corroboration of the plaint case or the
evidence of PW-1.
26. Conspicuously, none of the family members of the appellant-husband, who
would be the best witnesses to substantiate the case of mental cruelty
levelled against the respondent and his family members, was brought
forward as witness to support the plaint case. As such, adverse inference
can be drawn against the appellant-husband in respect of the plaint
allegations of cruelty by the wife during her stay at her matrimonial home.
27. However, the second aspect of the matter is whether the respondent-wife
could substantiate her serious allegations against the appellant-husband
and his family members in her pleadings and/or establish that there was
reasonable basis for making such allegations.
28. Although, in Paragraph No. 15 of the written statement, the respondent
categorically stated that the family members of the husband perpetrated
cruelty on her and tried to kill her second daughter on February 15, 2019,
the respondent-wife, as DW-1, categorically admitted in answer to Question
No. 16 in her cross-examination that she did not go to her matrimonial
house after December 15, 2018, which palpably belies the allegations that
her daughter was sought to be killed by her in-laws on February 15, 2019.
29. Although initially the respondent denied in her cross-examination that the
appellant had illicit relation with a lady called Sangita Mahata as well as
that the appellant instigated other persons to give immoral proposals to her
by giving her phone number to them, on recall, she grew wiser and denied
both the said facts. However, not a single corroborative evidence, either oral
9
or documentary, was brought forward by the respondent to substantiate the
allegations of illicit relation to her husband with the said lady.
30. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that counter
suggestions were not put to the respondent in her cross-examination
regarding the allegations levelled in her written statement against the
husband and his family members cannot be accepted, since specific counter
suggestions were put in that regard to the respondent, while deposing as
DW-1. In fact, in her initial cross-examination dated August 17, 2023, she
had denied such allegations herself, but made good such inconsistency on
recall on November 28, 2023.
31. Regarding the allegations of cruelty against the appellant when the
respondent came to know of the alleged illicit relation of the appellant with
another lady, the criminal case filed by the respondent as long back as on
May 19, 2020 on such count is still pending before the jurisdictional
criminal court. On the yardstick of preponderance of probability, however,
we do not find any evidence on record to substantiate the serious allegation
of illicit affair of the appellant-husband with another lady, nor do we find
evidentiary support for the allegations made in the written statement
regarding the appellant having given the mobile phone number of the
respondent to third parties and instigating them to make immoral proposals
to the respondent-wife. No evidence whatsoever in that regard, including
call records or any other documents or oral evidence, was sought to be
adduced by the respondent-wife at all.
10
32. Insofar as the allegation of the family members of the appellant having
attempted to kill her second daughter on February 15, 2019, the same is
demolished by her categorical admission in cross-examination to the effect
that the respondent did not return to her matrimonial house after December
15, 2018, that is, three months prior to such alleged incident. Although
recalled as a witness, the respondent-wife did not clarify or furnish any
explanation for such admission even on recall.
33. The respondent stated in reply to Question No. 13 in her cross-examination
that the appellant met her after December 15, 2018, but in answer to
Question No. 15, the respondent stated that she could not say how many
times the appellant came to meet her after December 15, 2018. The mother
of the respondent, in her cross-examination, stated in reply to Question No.
14 that the respondent resided at her matrimonial home till her second
daughter was three months old, evidently to suit the purpose of
substantiating the allegation that the in-laws of her daughter tried to kill
their second grandchild. Rather, such deposition of DW-2, the mother of
the respondent-wife, stands in stark contradiction with the admission of her
daughter in her cross-examination to the effect that she left her matrimonial
house and never returned after December 15, 2018.
34. Thus, none of the allegations made in the written statement could be
substantiated by the respondent, nor any reasonable basis for making such
allegations was made out by any independent evidence.
11
35. As held in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate (supra)1 and K. Srinivas Rao
(supra)2, reckless and defamatory/indecent allegations against one spouse
by the other in pleadings and filing unsubstantiated complaints itself
amounts to mental cruelty, entitling the subject-spouse to a decree of
divorce against the other.
36. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge erred in law
in not taking into consideration such component of cruelty by the
respondent-wife against the appellant-husband, as borne out by her
unsubstantiated and reckless allegations in her pleadings. The appellant is
justified in contending that the unfounded allegations in the written
statement cast social stigma and mental agony not only of the appellant but
his entire family. Also, the CISF, which is a part of the disciplined forces,
where the appellant is employed, evidently would not tolerate such reckless
allegations if substantiated. Hence, by making such serious allegations
against the appellant-husband and his family members, the respondent-wife
perpetrated mental cruelty by creating mental agony and social stigma to
the appellant and his entire family and jeopardised the service of the
appellant with the CISF, both of which constitute cruelty coming within the
ambit of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
37. Accordingly, on such ground alone, the appellant is entitled to a decree of
divorce.
1
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, reported at AIR 2003
SC 2462
2
K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, reported at (2013) 5 SCC 226
12
38. The premise of the learned Trial Judge that the husband did not file a suit
for restitution of conjugal rights to show his bona fides is erroneous in law,
since there is no such requirement in law that in the event the parties
combat each other in matrimonial duel, they have to initiate an action for
restitution of conjugal rights as a pre-condition for grant of divorce.
Furthermore, there is precious nothing on the part of the respondent-wife to
show her animus revertendi during the entire period of separation since
December 15, 2018.
39. The parties have not brought before the court any evidence of their having
tried to unite in conjugal life during this long period of eight years of
separation. Moreover, both parties have alleged during arguments that they
do not want to resume conjugal life, which unerringly indicates that the
marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably.
40. In Rakesh Raman (supra)3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically
observed that a marital relationship which has only become bitter and
acrimonious over the years does nothing but inflict cruelty on both sides
and to keep the façade of such broken marriage alive would be doing
injustice to both the parties. A marriage which has broken down
irretrievably, it was held, spells cruelty to both the parties, as in such a
relationship each party is treating the other with cruelty. Therefore, it was
held, it is itself a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 (1) (i-
a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3
Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, reported at (2023) 17 SCC 433
13
41. The apprehension of social stigma in the mind of the respondent-wife, if the
allegations of the appellant-husband against her are upheld, is unfounded,
since we categorically observe, on the basis of our above discussions, that
the appellant-husband failed to substantiate his allegations of cruelty on the
part of the respondent. However, on the basis of the unfounded and
unsubstantiated allegations of the respondent-wife in her written statement,
and taking into consideration the irretrievable breakdown of marriage
between the parties, the appellant-husband is entitled to a decree of divorce
in any event.
42. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge
erred in law and in fact in refusing to grant a divorce decree in favour of the
appellant-husband.
43. Accordingly, F.A.T. No. 443 of 2023 is allowed on contest, thereby setting
aside the judgment and decree dated December 6, 2023 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Khatra, District-Bankura in Matrimonial
Suit No. 07 of 2020 and decreeing the said suit, thereby granting dissolution
of marriage between the parties by way of divorce.
44. There will be no order as to costs.
45. A formal decree be drawn up accordingly.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
I agree.
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)
