Imposing Friends and Family Without Consent Amounts to Cruelty: HC Rules in Favor of Husband

In a notable judgment, the Calcutta High Court held that a wife imposing her friends and family at her husband’s residence against his will amounts to cruelty, thereby granting the husband’s plea for divorce. The Court emphasized that such behavior could make life intolerable for the spouse and falls within the broader definition of cruelty under matrimonial law.

Case Background

• The appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married under the Special Marriage Act in 2005. After marriage, they moved to Kolaghat, Mecheda, where the husband was allotted government quarters.
• In 2008, the husband filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, alleging that the wife:
  • Frequently imposed her friend, Mousumi Paul, and family members at his residence.
  • Spent more time with her friend than with her husband, disregarding conjugal responsibilities.
• The respondent-wife, in retaliation, filed a complaint against the husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, accusing him and his family of harassment.

Husband’s Arguments

• The husband contended that the wife’s actions, including the prolonged imposition of her friend and family at his quarters without his consent, constituted cruelty.
• He argued that the respondent-wife devoted minimal attention to their marital relationship, refused to have children, and eventually deserted him without any reasonable excuse.
• The husband also claimed that the wife’s complaint under Section 498A was a false and retaliatory action, aimed at harassing and maligning him and his family.

Wife’s Defense

• The respondent argued that her friend and family’s presence at the residence was not detrimental to the marital relationship.
• She contended that the husband refused to live with her at her official quarters in Narkeldanga, despite it being more convenient for her to travel to work from there.
• She alleged that her complaint under Section 498A was genuine and that her grievances were legitimate.

High Court’s Findings

The division bench comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Uday Kumar overturned the trial court’s dismissal of the divorce petition, making the following observations:

1. Imposition as Cruelty:
   • The Court held that imposing friends and family on the husband without his willingness, especially over a prolonged period, constituted cruelty, as it caused him immense discomfort and distress.
   • The bench observed: “Such imposition, sometimes even in the absence of the wife, made life intolerable for the husband and falls within the broader definition of cruelty.”
2. Trial Court’s Errors:
   • The High Court noted that the trial court substituted its own views on marriage and morality, rather than considering the specific circumstances of the couple.
   • The bench emphasized: “The situation of the particular man and woman before the court is to be considered, not Utopian notions of a perfect matrimonial life.”
   • While the trial court dismissed the husband’s claims regarding the false complaint, the High Court found merit in his argument that the Section 498A complaint was a retaliatory act filed only after the divorce summons was served.

The Court granted the decree of divorce to the husband, stating that the cumulative acts of the wife, including her disregard for conjugal responsibilities and prolonged absence from the marital home, constituted mental cruelty.

Case: Mr. Dhiraj Guin vs. Mrs. Tanusree Majumder