In a significant ruling on matrimonial law, the Calcutta High Court has set aside a Trial Court’s dismissal of a husband’s divorce plea, sharply criticizing the lower court’s judgment for being filled with prejudiced assumptions and fictional reasoning. Kolkata, May 22, 2025 — The Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, in the case of [Abhijit Mitra v. Dipa Mitra, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4515, decided on 22-05-2025], granted the husband a decree of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion, after finding his evidence detailed, credible, and completely uncontroverted.
The husband alleged that the wife had subjected him to repeated public humiliation, verbal cruelty, and had abandoned the matrimonial relationship since June 2012, returning only for brief periods. He also stated that she manipulated their son against him, isolating him emotionally within his own home.
A key episode cited was when the husband’s mother suffered a cerebral attack in September 2014. The wife’s indifference, marked by a short hospital visit and only a single text message, was noted despite the family’s crisis. The mother eventually passed away in April 2015, and while the wife attended the funeral rites, she later left the house permanently with all her belongings.
Although the wife filed a written response, she failed to submit evidence or cross-examine the husband, allowing the case to proceed ex parte. Nevertheless, the Trial Court dismissed the petition without properly evaluating the evidence, instead attributing unsubstantiated traits to the husband such as a “lustful attitude” and “incorrigible conduct”—claims not even made by the wife.
The High Court in [Abhijit Mitra v. Dipa Mitra, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 4515] observed that the Trial Judge had indulged in conjecture, invoking irrelevant and bizarre phrases like “feministic instinct,” “cognitive dissonance,” and “erotic passion.” The Court noted that such language reflected a pattern of verbose and prejudiced decision-making, disconnected from legal principles and the factual matrix.
The judgment further criticized the Trial Judge for inventing imaginary “principles” of marriage—such as “transcendental efforts” and “austerity of the spouse”—which had no basis in law. It stressed that matrimonial disputes must be decided on the basis of evidence and not abstract personal ideologies.
Concluding that the husband had established his case with clear and consistent testimony, and that the Trial Court had failed in its judicial duty, the High Court allowed the appeal, overturned the Trial Court’s findings, and granted the decree of divorce.