JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR versus BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 26-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
117
   [2021] 2 S.C.R. 117
JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR
v.
BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3786-3787 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 26, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI
AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty – When reputation of spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues,
his superiors and society at large, he cannot be expected to condone
such conduct and continue with the matrimonial relationship – In
the instant case, army officer’s career and reputation suffered due
to wife’s defamatory complaints to his superior in the Army and to
the State Women Commission and also defamatory materials posted
on other platforms – Explanation of wife that she made those
complaints in order to protect the matrimonial ties did not justify
the persistent effort made by her to undermine the dignity and
reputation of husband – High Court refused to grant relief to husband
on the ground that there was no definite finding that the wife’s
allegations were false – This was not the correct way to deal with
the issue – Husband entitled to divorce.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce – Allegation of mental
cruelty – The degree of tolerance varies from one couple to another
and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level
of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine
whether cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage,
at the instance of the wronged party.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. For considering dissolution of marriage at the
instance of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of such
mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue
with the matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wronged
party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue
to live with his/her spouse. The materials in the present case
117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
reveal that the respondent had made several defamatory
complaints to the appellant’s superiors in the Army for which, a
Court of inquiry was held by the Army authorities against the
appellant. Primarily for those, the appellant’s career progress
got affected. The Respondent was also making complaints to other
authorities, such as, the State Commission for Women and has
posted defamatory materials on other platforms. The net outcome
of above is that the appellant’s career and reputation had suffered.
[Paras 10, 11][121-G-H; 122-A-B, C-D]
2. When the appellant has suffered adverse consequences
in his life and career on account of the allegations made by the
respondent, the legal consequences must follow and those cannot
be prevented only because, no Court has determined that the
allegations were false. The High Court however felt that without
any definite finding on the credibility of the wife’s allegation, the
wronged spouse would be disentitled to relief. This is not found
to be the correct way to deal with the issue. Proceeding with the
above understanding, the question which requires to be answered
here is whether the conduct of the respondent would fall within
the realm of mental cruelty. Here the allegations are levelled by
a highly educated spouse and they do have the propensity to
irreparably damage the character and reputation of the appellant.
When the reputation of the spouse is sullied amongst his
colleagues, his superiors and the society at large, it would be
difficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected
party. [Paras 12, 13][122-E-G]
3.  The explanation of the wife that she made those
complaints in order to protect the matrimonial ties would not
justify the persistent effort made by her to undermine the dignity
and reputation of the appellant. In circumstances like this, the
wronged party cannot be expected to continue with the
matrimonial relationship and there is enough justification for him
to seek separation. Therefore, the High Court was in error in
describing the broken relationship as normal wear and tear of
middle class married life. It is a definite case of cruelty inflicted
by the respondent against the appellant and as such enough
justification is found to set aside the impugned judgment of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
119
High Court and to restore the order passed by the Family Court.
The appellant is accordingly held entitled to dissolution of his
marriage and consequently the respondent’s application for
restitution of conjugal rights stands dismissed. [Paras 14 and
1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.