Form No. J(2) In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya FA 78 of 2023 IA No: CAN 3 of 2025 Smt. Patralekha Dutta Vs. Sri Chinmoy Dutta For the appellant : Mr. Kushal Kumar Mukherjee, Mr. Diptangshu Basu For the respondent : Mr. Indrajit Sen, Mr. S. Medda, Ms. Indralina Sen Heard on : 30.07.2026 Judgment on : 30.07.2026 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:- 1. The present appeal arises at the behest of the defendant/wife, assailing a divorce decree obtained by the respondent/husband primarily on the ground of cruelty. 2 2. We are informed that the parties have a daughter who was born on July 31, 1999 and has since attained majority. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant/wife was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on February 24, 2002 due to the conduct of the respondent/husband, inasmuch as, during a trip taken by the couple to Digha in the year 1997, the respondent/husband allegedly forced the appellant to share the bed with a friend of the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to such atrocity committed by the respondent/husband, the appellant was constrained to lodge a complaint, though much later, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, in the interest of keeping the marriage intact, subsequently the same was not pressed by the wife. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant/wife also discovered subsequently that there was an extramarital affair between the husband and another lady, which also prompted the appellant/wife to stay out of the matrimonial home. 6. Learned counsel next contends that the learned Trial Judge erred in law in granting a decree for divorce without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the contentions of the appellant/wife and argues that none of the allegations levelled by the appellant/wife against the respondent/husband were substantiated by her by adducing cogent evidence. 3 8. Insofar as the allegation of the supposed incident at Digha in 1997 is concerned, it is contended that no complaint was lodged by the appellant/wife contemporaneously. Much thereafter, in the year 2007, that is, after five years of their separation and during the pendency of the matrimonial suit, a complaint was lodged under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 406 thereof, on the premise of such alleged incident. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that ultimately the respondent/husband was acquitted and discharged from the resultant criminal case, due to no evidence of the involvement of the respondent/husband in the said alleged offence being found. However, in the interregnum, the husband was compelled to obtain bail. 9. Not stopping at lodging the complaint, the appellant/wife had moved this Court for cancellation of such bail. 10. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the aforesaid unsubstantiated and baseless allegations levelled by the appellant/wife against the respondent/husband and the harassment caused to the respondent by the appellant themselves constitute acts of extreme mental cruelty and loss of face of the respondent, justifying the divorce decree against the appellant. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent further points out that, in a bid to reconcile the marriage between the parties, the respondent/husband had instituted the present suit initially in the year 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, upon the appellant/wife having 4 initiated false complaints against the respondent, the respondent/husband was constrained to convert the same to a divorce proceeding, which ultimately culminated in the impugned divorce decree. 12. Learned counsel points out that even during pendency of the appeal, mediation between the parties failed. 13. Thus, it is submitted that nothing remains in the marriage and the same was rightly dissolved by the learned Trial Judge. 14. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant/wife, at the stage of trial of the criminal proceeding under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, had herself declared as a hostile witness by refusing to press her allegations against the respondent/husband. 15. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the materials before us, we find that the learned Trial Judge was fully justified in passing the decree for divorce. 16. Allegations of serious nature were levelled by the appellant/wife, that too, five years after separation from her husband, the respondent, and during pendency of the matrimonial proceeding, which gives rise to the obvious presumption that the same was a result of an afterthought, in order to furnish a defence in the matrimonial proceeding. 17. The allegation under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code comprised of an alleged incident of 1997. The appellant/wife went to the extent of alleging that the respondent/husband, in a vacation of 5 the parties, had forced her to compromise her modesty before his friend. 18. Such a serious allegation is sufficient to destroy the moral of a person as well as his goodwill in the public eye. 19. Notably, no contemporaneous complaint was lodged by the appellant/wife before any authority. After about a decade, that too during pendency of the matrimonial suit, the criminal complaint was filed, compelling the respondent/husband to obtain bail. 20. The appellant/wife in fact, moved for cancellation of such bail before this Court, thereby aggravating the cruelty perpetrated by her by making unsubstantiated allegations against her husband. 21. Furthermore, even after the alleged incident of 1997, a daughter was born to the parties on July 31, 1999, which clearly indicates that either there was no such incident at all or even if so, the appellant/wife had condoned the same in the meantime. 22. When the wife’s turn to adduce evidence in the criminal trial came, she conveniently declared that at that present moment, she had no allegation against the accused person/husband. The criminal court observed that thus, she failed to corroborate the written complaint lodged by her and also stated nothing about the alleged incident. Hence, the Court came to the finding that the ingredients of cruelty were missing in the case and the charge framed under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code were not proved against the accused person, ultimately holding that the respondent/husband was found 6 and held not to be guilty for the alleged offence and was acquitted from the case. 23. The aforesaid chain of events clearly goes on to establish extreme mental cruelty being perpetrated by the appellant/wife against the respondent/husband. 24. Even otherwise, both in her written statement and in her examination-in-chief, the appellant/wife alleged about an extramarital affair of the respondent/husband, without furnishing any particulars thereof, which was also not substantiated by any corroborative evidence. 25. The aforesaid narrative also goes on to clinch the issue of cruelty against the appellant/wife. 26. Even without looking into the purported agreement between the parties, to the effect that the appellant/wife would return after four months from her leaving the matrimonial home on October 24, 2002, since the appellant/wife disputes the same having been executed of her own volition, we find sufficient materials otherwise to justify the conclusion that the appellant/wife never intended to return to conjugal life with the respondent. 27. In the present case, we further find that the respondent/husband was initially willing to take back the appellant/wife and resume conjugal relationship, which is borne out by the fact that the respondent/husband had originally instituted the suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 7 28. However, subsequently, the appellant/wife having lodged a complaint under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the suit was converted to one for divorce, since in the perception of the respondent/husband, it was no longer possible for them to live together as spouses. 29. Even thereafter, we do not find anything on record to indicate that there was any animus revertendi on the part of the appellant/wife at any point of time or that any move was made by her to return to her matrimonial home to resume conjugal relationship with the respondent. 30. We also take note of the fact that the matter was referred to the Mediation Committee of this Court. However, mediation failed. 31. Thus, the marriage between the parties is at present nothing better than deadwood and keeping the same alive would be detrimental to the interest of either party. 32. Be that as it may, we find from the impugned judgment that the learned Trial Judge took note of all the relevant facets of the case. In addition, in view of the other developments which we have narrated above, this Court is of the opinion that the divorce decree granted by the learned Trial Judge was absolutely justified. 33. In such view of the matter, FA 78 of 2023 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the impugned judgment and decree dated December 22, 2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Fifth Court at Alipore, District – South 24 Parganas 8 in Matrimonial Suit No. 09 of 2004 and sustaining the divorce decree in favour of the respondent/husband against the appellant/wife. 34. At this juncture, we must also take note of the fact that on our query, both parties agree to permanent alimony being paid by the respondent/husband to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month for the respondent as well as the daughter of the parties, who is still a spinster, with the break-up of Rs.15,000/- each between the appellant/wife and the daughter. 35. Moreover, the respondent/husband is also agreeable to reimburse the rent/licence fees being paid, if and as paid, by the appellant/wife for the rental/licensed accommodation where she is residing at present, subject to the appellant furnishing a copy of the rent/licence agreement in respect of the said premises and furnishing receipts evidencing payment of such rent/licence fee each month. 36. Accordingly, we direct the respondent/husband to pay permanent alimony at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month (Rs.15,000/- for the respondent/wife and Rs.15,000/- for the daughter of the parties), payable within the fifteenth day of each current month. 37. That apart, upon the respondent/wife furnishing a copy of the current licence/rent agreement in respect of her accommodation to the respondent/husband (either directly or through the respondent’s learned Advocate in this Court), as well as furnishing receipts for the licence fee/rent for such accommodation for each month, the respondent/husband shall reimburse such licence fee/rent within 15 days from the receipt of such receipts every month. 9 38. CAN 3 of 2025 is consequentially disposed of as well. 39. There will be no order as to costs. 40. A formal decree be drawn up accordingly. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) I agree. (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) AD-07 TN