PRIMELEGAL | 17 Years Apart, False Arrest, and a Marriage That Existed Only on Paper; Calcutta HC Finally Ended It

CASE NAME: Saranjit Kaur (Hura) v. Inder Singh Hura

CASE NUMBER: FA No. 185 of 2022

COURT: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Side

DATE: 17 April, 2026

CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya 

FACTS

The parties entered into marriage through Singh customs on 27 April, 2005. The couple welcomed their first child on 26 April, 2007. The wife departed their shared residence on 2 November, 2009 after four years of marriage because she claimed her husband and his relatives had attacked her and tried to burn her and their child. The husband-initiated divorce proceedings on 15 January, 2010 because he claimed his wife had abused him. The wife filed a criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC on 5 February, 2010. In 2017 she initiated another criminal case. The husband received not guilty verdicts in both trials which occurred in 2010 and 2019 because the prosecution presented no proof against him. The Asansol Trial Court granted the husband divorce on December 9 2021. The wife then appealed to the Calcutta High Court.

ISSUES

Issue I: Was the wife guilty of mental cruelty towards the husband?

Issue II: Had the marriage broken down irretrievably, and can that be a ground for divorce?

Issue III: Should the Trial Court have granted permanent alimony to the wife?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Divorce on the ground of cruelty – mental or physical cruelty by one spouse towards the other.
2. Section 25 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Permanent alimony and maintenance – can be granted at the time of decree or any time subsequent thereto, upon application.
3. Section 498A Indian Penal Code, 1860: Husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty; a cognizable and non-bailable offence. (BNS, 2023 Section 85)
4. Section 403 Indian Penal Code, 1860: Dishonest misappropriation of property. (BNS, 2023 Section 314)
5. Section 406 Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for criminal breach of trust. (BNS, 2023 Section 316 (2))
6. Section 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for criminal conspiracy. (BNS, 2023 Section 61(2))
7. Article 141 Constitution of India: Law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
8. Article 142 Constitution of India: Supreme Court’s extraordinary power to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter.
9. Section 25 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Power of the Supreme Court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding from one High Court to another.

ARGUMENTS 

BY THE WIFE (APPELLANT)

The husband failed to prove his claim of cruelty through his presented evidence. The only witness who supported him was his elder brother who had personal interest in the case. The husband provided two different accounts about the start of their disputes when he first claimed they began after One and Half year (1.5 years) and then said they started on their wedding day. The husband never filed any police complaint about the alleged cruelty by the wife which shows the cruelty was not genuine. The standards of proof which civil and criminal courts use to determine cases differ from each other so an acquittal in a criminal case cannot establish proof of cruelty. The wife never called the husband “characterless”; this was denied in cross-examination. The mother’s (DW-3) statement should be ignored as she was 65 years old and studied only till Class V. Hindu Law does not recognize irretrievable breakdown as a legitimate reason for obtaining divorce. The wife who is 44 years old cannot remarry because she has a child with her husband who is their spouse. The Trial Court should have granted permanent alimony to the husband according to Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act even if the court approves their divorce.

BY THE HUSBAND (RESPONDENT)

The wife maintained unbroken ill conduct from their wedding day until now through her abusive actions and false accusations and her refusal to participate in their marital relationship. The mother of the child prevented his father from seeing him since his birth and she made school admission decisions for him at Mussoorie without consulting his father. The criminal complaint under 498A was filed 21 days after the divorce suit which shows that the complaint was filed to retaliate against the husband and not to provide authentic information. The husband won an acquittal in both criminal cases because there was no evidence which proved that the accusations against him were completely false. The wife made a false accusation against her husband which resulted in his arrest at work and led to nine hours of detention that created severe mental distress and public embarrassment. The mother of the wife (DW-3) admitted during cross-examination that her daughter displayed stubbornness and her daughter accused her husband of having an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law which constitutes character assassination. The wife went to the hospital after she left home but doctors found no external injuries on her body which proves that she made false allegations of physical assault. The couple has lived apart for 17 years which proves that their marriage has reached a point of irretrievable breakdown which constitutes legal grounds for divorce. 

ANALYSIS

1. The Court established that the husband’s testimony (PW-1) received confirmation through his brother (PW-2) who delivered consistent testimony during cross-examination. The Court correctly determined that family members who testify during legal proceedings do not automatically become biased witnesses because the witness who lived in the matrimonial home possessed direct access to event information. 
2. The Court established that the husband’s two statements regarding dispute initiation showed a “contradiction” which needed clarification because he made both statements during different times. The wife’s mother (DW-3) confirmed during cross-examination that the wife exhibited stubbornness while claiming that her husband engaged in an illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. The wife must accept DW-3 ‘s admissions because she brought her own witness who had no hostile declaration but made direct testimony for the case. The wife must accept DW-3’s admissions because she brought her own witness who had no hostile declaration but made direct testimony for the case.
3. The criminal complaint which was filed 21 days after the divorce suit started, involved an incident that occurred three months before the actual complaint was made. The two criminal cases reached not guilty verdicts because the prosecution failed to establish evidence required for the prosecution’s case. The Court applied the Supreme Court ruling in Rani Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani, reported at (2020) 18 SCC 247 to negate the AP High Court judgment which the wife used as evidence because the Supreme Court ruling established that trial acquittals prove false allegations and false reports lead to mental cruelty. The wife’s false allegations resulted in the husband experiencing workplace arrest and nine-hour detention which created mental distress and public disgrace
4. The parties have lived separately since 2009 which makes their separation period exceed 17 years. The wife demonstrated no intention to resume their married life together which shows her permanent decision to stay away from their shared home. The couple lost their only remaining reason to stay married because their son reached adulthood. The Court used the Supreme Court’s historic decision from Rakesh Raman v. Kavita (2023) 17 SCC 433 to establish that irretrievable breakdown serves as a basis for divorce which constitutes “cruelty” according to Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. On Permanent Alimony: The wife never filed any application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act; neither before the Trial Court nor before the High Court. The court needs an application together with supporting materials to grant permanent alimony because it cannot decide this matter through suo motu authority. The court denied alimony to the wife yet it established a future path for her to request alimony because Section 25 permits applications after the divorce decree. 

JUDGEMENT
The Calcutta High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the divorce judgment which the Trial Court issued on 9 December, 2021. The Court held:

The wife committed mental cruelty through her actions which included character assassination and abusive behavior and her refusal to cooperate before the lawsuit and her unethical criminal complaint filing after the lawsuit which led to her acquittals. The marriage had irretrievably broken down and such breakdown amounts to cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court denied permanent alimony because no application had been submitted but the wife can submit her application to the appropriate civil court at any time.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the case establishes an important legal precedent for Indian matrimonial law and defines the mental cruelty standards which prove irretrievable marriage breakdown. The Court established that submitting false criminal charges against a spouse constitutes severe mental abuse. The Supreme Court established in the case of Rakesh Raman that completely collapsed marriages without any chance of reconciliation cause mutual cruelty between spouses who can legally obtain divorce. The judgment demonstrates how important adherence to legal procedures remains because the wife lost her alimony rights after failing to submit the necessary application despite her legal entitlement to do so. 

“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.” 

WRITTEN BY: PRANAVI KOLLU

read the copy of judgment here

SARANJIT KAUR (HURA) -versus- INDER SINGH HURA