The Calcutta High Court on Friday said it is the common obligation of the husband and wife to provide a conducive environment for the pair to live happily and that it is inappropriate to place the husband on a higher pedestal than a woman in the matter of Dipanwita Das vs Moloy Das.
The statement made by a family court that in a happy marriage, the woman provides the “climate” and the husband offers the “landscape” was met with disapproval by a division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Madhuresh Prasad.
In its order, the bench stated “This observation is an archaic notion which has gradually eroded with the advancement of society in all respect. The two persons grown up and raised in a different atmosphere have a reciprocal and or collective duty to create a congenial atmosphere which cannot be said to be a one way traffic.“
The court continued on to state that it was the joint responsibility of the husband and wife to put an end to the frivolous matters that are typical of marital relationships.
The Bench opined, “Even the Constitution of India recognises equality in gender and therefore, the husband to be put on higher degree than that of the wife is unacceptable,”
The High Court said that the family court seemed to be influenced by emotions and an improper interpretation of the facts.
The Court observed , “Therefore, we could not persuade ourselves to agree with the findings made in the impugned judgment, which is thus, set aside. The application for solution of marriage (filed by husband) is dismissed while the application for restitution of conjugal rights (filed by wife) is allowed.”
According to the facts of case, the husband claimed that his wife had abused him, battered him and his mother, and made up false accusations against him and his family in order to subject him to torture.
Contrary to what the husband said, the wife argued that she was the victim of mental abuse at the hands of the husband and his family.
The way the family court valued the evidence on record was covered by the court’s order. It was highlighted that the family court made findings against the wife only because she, like her husband, had first filed for divorce but then applied for restoration of conjugal rights.
According to the High Court, it was wrong to make such a determination based only on the fact that the wife had not first requested the restoration of her marital rights.
Additionally, it was discovered that the family court’s conclusions—which claimed that the wife had cruelly treated her husband and in-laws by bringing a lawsuit against them—were unfounded since the woman had only complained about her husband’s departure from the marital residence.
The court observed that the allegation in question included no arrests and that, thus, it would not qualify as cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Counsels appeared for Wife : Advocates Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Dyutiman Banerjee, Sandipan Das, Subhrajit Saha, Anindita Chatterjee, Badrul Karim, Kiron Sk, Sanajit Roy and Saumava Ganguly
Counsel appeared for the husband: Advocate Swagata Dutta.