The Calcutta High Court has enunciated that infertility is not a ground for divorce. Abandoning one’s wife in such a situation where the wife is undergoing severe mental and physical trauma amounts to cruelty.
A revision petition was filed before the High Court by the husband who sought for quashing of criminal charges against him. The couple was married for almost 10 years and the husband filed for mutual divorce. A month after, the wife filed a criminal complaint against the husband under Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The contention of the husband that the wife filed the said complaint with mala fide intentions and only to harass the husband was not accepted by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul).
The Court noted the wife’s medical history and suggestion of a doctor in Bengaluru for the wife to follow up with a Neurologist and psychiatrist. It was noted that the wife was suffering from mental and physical distress. Instead of being a pillar of strength for her, the husband subjected her to continuous cruelty by deserting her in times of need.
“During such a time it is the duty of a spouse to be the strength which the other has lost”, the Court opined.
The wife had developed primary infertility with premature menopause, which can cause severe shock to a woman who has yet to become a mother.
The High Court expounded that such a reason i.e., infertility is not a ground for divorce. Different options can be exercised for parenthood. Further, it was observed that such situations require that the couple together face the world and society bravely.
“A spouse has to be understanding in these circumstances as it is the other who can help one to regain his/her mental, physical and emotional strength.”
Noting that for one to be this understanding, a good heart and support system is required and this is something which is not everyone’s cup of tea, the Calcutta High Court ruled that a prima facie case has been made against the husband and hence, proceedings against him were not quashed.
Case Title: Sri Uttam Kumar Bose v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: CRR 144 of 2019
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mr. Bibaswan Bhattacharrya
Advocate for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Sudip Ghosh , Mr. Bitasok Banerjee
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments