Trial Judge Cannot Turn into Fiction Writer: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce, Slams Perversity and 'Copy-Paste' Judgment

“Cruelty Allegations Unrebutted, Marriage Irretrievably Broken – Divorce Justified” – Calcutta High Court overturning an ex parte dismissal of a husband’s divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and granting a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The Court came down heavily on the trial court for delivering a judgment that was disconnected from the pleadings and evidence, replete with literary flourishes and speculative commentary, and lacking in legal reasoning. The Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar condemned the judgment as "perverse" and "extraneous," and warned the trial judge of disciplinary consequences for future misconduct of similar nature.

Background of the CaseThe appellant-husband Abhijit Mitra had filed a matrimonial suit in 2015 before the Additional District Judge, Sealdah, seeking divorce from his wife Dipa Mitra (Ghosh) on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. He alleged public humiliation, threats of criminal prosecution, disruption of matrimonial cohabitation, and deliberate emotional detachment. The wife filed a written statement but never led any evidence nor cross-examined the husband, who had deposed as PW1.

Despite this, the trial court dismissed the suit in 2018 through a judgment which, as the High Court noted, relied heavily on non-legal reasoning, irrelevant philosophy, and language apparently lifted verbatim from other judgments. The husband appealed, and the High Court proceeded ex parte after the respondent failed to appear despite several opportunities, including in mediation.

The High Court was faced with three core questions: whether the trial court's decision was legally sustainable, whether the husband's allegations of cruelty were proved, and whether the conduct of the wife indicated an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

The Court began by examining the language and reasoning of the trial court’s judgment, noting with concern that the learned judge had adopted “literary jargon”, “flowery expressions”, and repeated stock phrases unconnected to the case record. Phrases such as “the husband must bridge the gap,” “compunction of fiction,” and “feministic instinct after decay” were criticised as irrelevant and imaginary.

The Court observed: “The entire mindset of the learned Trial Judge appears to spring up from a patriarchal and condescending approach...” [Para 9]

“We are just stopping short of making any serious adverse comment... If any future instance of such act is noticed, the same may be directed to be entered into his service book.” [Para 37]

Turning to the pleadings and evidence, the Court found that the husband had specifically alleged multiple acts of mental cruelty: the wife’s public insults, refusal to return to the matrimonial home, interference in his relationship with their son, and threats of criminal prosecution. These allegations were substantiated in his deposition, which remained unchallenged and uncontroverted, as the wife neither cross-examined nor appeared for trial.

The High Court emphasized the legal consequence of such non-participation:

“In the absence of cross-examination and independent evidence being led by the wife, the allegations should have been accepted... by application of the doctrine of non traverse.” [Para 25]

The Court further held that the absence of animus revertendi—i.e., intention to resume cohabitation—was evident from the wife’s prolonged absence, non-participation in conciliation or mediation, and refusal to engage with the court even during the appeal.

The Bench cited the contemporary legal position that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, when coupled with prolonged separation and cruelty, amounts to mental cruelty for the purposes of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act:

“If such a relationship is perpetuated with the blessings of the court, it would tantamount to cruelty being perpetrated on both spouses.” [Para 31]

The Calcutta High Court found that the trial court’s decision was based on irrelevant, non-legal considerations, with the judge venturing into moralistic and speculative theorizing rather than confining himself to the facts and law. The appellate court categorically found the husband's allegations of cruelty—such as emotional withdrawal, public defamation, and breakdown of conjugal life—to be proved in evidence.

The Court clarified that the wife’s medical decisions, including undergoing a hysterectomy without the husband's consent, were her personal right and did not amount to cruelty. However, the other allegations, coupled with her failure to contest or respond effectively, made out a strong case for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 17 February 2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, First Court, Sealdah, in Matrimonial Suit No. 227 of 2015 was set aside, and a decree of divorce was granted to the husband.

The Bench also formally recorded that, while it refrained from initiating disciplinary action against the trial judge, his conduct would warrant such action if repeated in future. The judges warned against “copy-pasting previous judgments” and turning courtrooms into “a canvas for literary indulgence”.

This judgment is a strong affirmation of judicial discipline, evidentiary rigour, and procedural fairness in matrimonial litigation. It underscores that courts must be governed by legal reasoning and factual analysis, not moral sermonizing or rhetorical display. Where one party has adduced evidence that goes unchallenged, and the marriage has clearly broken down, justice demands relief, not speculative justification for denial. The Calcutta High Court’s message is clear—family courts must uphold the law, not write novels.

Date of Decision: 22 May 2025