Unsubstantiated Allegations of Illicit Affair and Attempt to Kill Child in Written Statement Amount to Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce

"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 and jeopardised the service of the appellant with the CISF", Calcutta High Court.

In a significant matrimonial ruling that reinforces the legal consequences of reckless and unsubstantiated allegations in pleadings, the Calcutta High Court on March 9, 2026 granted a decree of divorce to a CISF employee whose wife had alleged in her written statement that his family attempted to kill their second daughter, that he was having an illicit affair, and that he gave her mobile number to third parties to solicit immoral proposals — none of which could be substantiated in evidence, and one of which was demolished by the wife's own admission in cross-examination.

A Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held that such reckless, defamatory and unsubstantiated allegations in pleadings themselves constitute mental cruelty entitling the husband to a divorce decree, and independently held that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage of over eight years is itself a ground for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The parties married and had two daughters, the second born on November 17, 2018. The wife left the matrimonial home on December 15, 2018. The husband, a CISF employee, filed Matrimonial Suit No. 07 of 2020 before the Additional District Judge, Khatra, District Bankura, seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife filed a written statement containing serious allegations — that on February 15, 2019, the husband's family members tried to kill their second daughter; that the husband had an illicit relationship with a woman named Sangita Mahata; and that the husband gave the wife's mobile number to third parties inciting them to make immoral proposals to her. The wife also lodged a criminal complaint in May 2020, giving rise to a case under Sections 498A, 307 and 34 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court dismissed the husband's divorce suit. He appealed before the Calcutta High Court.

Two questions arose: first, whether unsubstantiated and reckless allegations made by the wife in her written statement constituted mental cruelty entitling the husband to a divorce decree; and second, whether irretrievable breakdown of marriage for over eight years independently constituted a ground for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

On the Husband's Plaint Allegations Not Being Substantiated

The Court first addressed the husband's own case of cruelty during cohabitation and found it unproven. The plaint allegations of the wife refusing to do household work and ill-behaving with in-laws were vague, without specific dates or instances, and fell short of establishing mental cruelty. The sole independent witness produced by the husband, PW-2, admitted in cross-examination that he had come to know about the incidents only the day before he deposed — relegating his evidence to hearsay. Most significantly, the Court drew an adverse inference against the husband for not producing any family member as a witness, noting that such family members would have been the best witnesses to substantiate the allegations of cruelty during cohabitation.

"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."

On the Wife's Written Statement Allegations Being Demolished

The Court then turned to examine the wife's serious counter-allegations, and found each one to be wholly without evidentiary support — and the most serious of them destroyed by the wife's own admission.

The allegation that the husband's family tried to kill their second daughter on February 15, 2019, was the gravest charge in the written statement. The Court found it demolished by the wife's categorical admission in cross-examination that she had not returned to her matrimonial home after December 15, 2018 — three months before the alleged incident. The wife offered no clarification or explanation for this admission even when recalled as a witness. The mother of the wife, examined as DW-2, deposed that the wife stayed at the matrimonial home until the second child was three months old — evidence apparently tailored to support the allegation — but this stood in stark contradiction to her own daughter's admission.

"The allegation that the family members of the appellant had attempted to kill her second daughter on February 15, 2019, 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."

On the alleged illicit affair with Sangita Mahata, the Court found not a single corroborative document — no call records, no oral independent witness, nothing. The wife herself, in her initial cross-examination, denied the allegation, only to contradict herself on recall. The Court held that on the yardstick of preponderance of probability, no evidence on record existed to substantiate the charge. Equally, the allegation of the husband distributing the wife's mobile number to third parties for immoral proposals was entirely unsubstantiated.

"Not a single corroborative evidence, either oral or documentary, was brought forward by the respondent to substantiate the allegations of illicit relation of her husband with the said lady."

On Unsubstantiated Allegations in Pleadings Constituting Mental Cruelty

Relying on the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncements in Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate and K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, the Court held that reckless, defamatory and unsubstantiated allegations against a spouse or his family in pleadings, and filing complaints adverse to the spouse's employment, amount to mental cruelty. The Court specifically noted that the husband was a CISF employee — a member of a disciplined force — and that the serious allegations in the wife's written statement, if pursued, could jeopardise his service. Both the social stigma caused to the husband and his entire family, and the threat to his employment with a disciplined force, were held to constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

"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."

The Court held that on this ground alone, the husband was entitled to a decree of divorce, and that the trial court had erred in law by failing to take this component of cruelty into account at all.

On Non-Filing of Restitution Suit Not Being a Prerequisite for Divorce

The trial court had held against the husband on the ground that he had not filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, treating this as evidence of lack of bona fides. The High Court squarely rejected this reasoning as legally erroneous. There is no requirement in law that a party must initiate restitution proceedings as a precondition for seeking divorce. The Court also noted that the wife had shown no animus revertendi whatsoever during the entire period of separation since December 2018.

"There is no 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."

On Irretrievable Breakdown as an Independent Ground for Divorce

Beyond the finding of mental cruelty, the Court independently held that the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage over more than eight years was itself a ground for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia). Both parties had categorically stated during arguments before the High Court that they did not wish to resume conjugal life. Neither had made any attempt to unite during the entire period of separation. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita, the Court held that a marital relationship which has only become bitter and acrimonious over the years inflicts cruelty on both sides, and that keeping the facade of a broken marriage alive does injustice to both parties.

"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."

The Court also addressed the wife's expressed concern about social stigma, noting that since the husband's own plaint allegations of cruelty during cohabitation had not been substantiated, the divorce was being granted on the basis of the wife's unsubstantiated written statement allegations and irretrievable breakdown — and not on any finding of cruelty by the wife during cohabitation. The apprehension of stigma was therefore unfounded.

Allowing the appeal, the Calcutta High Court set aside the trial court's dismissal and decreed the divorce suit, dissolving the marriage between the parties. The judgment reinforces two important principles: first, that reckless and unsubstantiated allegations in matrimonial pleadings — particularly those threatening a spouse's employment in a disciplined force — constitute actionable mental cruelty; and second, that irretrievable breakdown of marriage, when unambiguously established, is itself a ground for dissolution under Section 13(1)(ia), even in the absence of any statutory amendment expressly incorporating it.

Date of Decision: March 9, 2026