The Calcutta High Court recently issued a ruling stating that infertility in a woman does not constitute a valid reason for seeking a divorce. The Court emphasized that requesting a divorce by mutual consent from a wife who is experiencing trauma due to primary infertility constitutes mental cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) noted,”
“The reason of infertility is not a ground for divorce. There are several options to become parents. A spouse has to be understanding in these circumstances as it is the other (only) who can help one to regain her/his mental, physical and emotional strength. To be able to face the world, the society in general, bravely together.”
The Court, while taking into consideration the wife’s medical condition, recognized that primary infertility resulting from premature menopause is a significant emotional burden for a woman who desires to become a mother. The Court also acknowledged that the roles could have been reversed and that the husband would have expected support from his wife in a similar situation.
The Court was evaluating the wife’s claim of “mental cruelty” made against her husband, who had sought a divorce by mutual consent, citing primary infertility caused by premature menopause. The husband had stated that he was unable to endure the ongoing emotional distress and anguish caused by the situation.
Upon examining the opposing arguments, the Court considered the fact that the wife’s diagnosis of primary infertility caused her significant emotional distress, leading to a significant weight loss of 30 kgs over a period of two years. The Court emphasized that in these situations, it is expected for a spouse to provide support, which was not present in this case. The Court determined that the husband’s behavior constituted mental cruelty and ruled accordingly.
“It was extremely insensitive of the petitioner in this case to ask the opposite party in such traumatic situation for a divorce by mutual consent, which amounts to mental cruelty which effected her life and health.”
The Court lamented the expectation for a spouse to exhibit strength and resilience in the face of adversity, and further noted,
“To be fair to the petitioner/husband, maybe it is not everyone’s cup to tea to be strong in such a situation. To be strong in such circumstances requires a very caring heart and also a very good support system, which always is not there. Sometimes, it so happens that only one can help oneself in such situations. A strong and confident person is obviously in a zone which helps a person to cure faster than another person who may not be so lucky.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Rupali Devi vs State of U.P. (2019) and Ranveer Upadhyay & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr to find that a cognizable offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had been committed by the husband.
As a result, the Court denied the husband’s revision petition against the criminal proceedings initiated by the wife.
Case Title: Sri Uttam Kumar Bose v. State of West Bengal
