In a landmark judgment, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that a wife selling property registered in her name without her husband’s consent does not amount to cruelty. The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Prasenjit Biswas. They were hearing an appeal from a woman challenging a trial court’s verdict that had granted a divorce in favor of her husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The High Court stated,
“It appears that both are educated and if the wife decided to sell the property standing in her name without seeking approval or permission from the husband-respondent, it shall not constitute cruelty.”
This statement was in response to the trial court’s 2014 presumption that the husband had paid for the land since the wife had no income. However, the High Court emphasized that even if this were true, the property was indisputably registered in the wife’s name.
Further elaborating on the matter, the court remarked,
“The wife cannot be regarded as a property of the husband nor she is expected to seek any permission from the husband to do any act or a thing which she decided to do in her life.”
This sentiment was echoed in the judgment, which highlighted that a wife is not her husband’s property and should not be expected to seek his permission for her actions.
The case also involved allegations from the husband that his wife had withdrawn money from a joint bank account she held with her late father-in-law, which he deemed as cruelty. The High Court dismissed this claim, stating that such an allegation was
“far-fetched and untenable.”
The court further noted that the father-in-law’s decision to open a joint account with his daughter-in-law contradicted the husband’s claims that the wife was quarrelsome shortly after their marriage.
The narrative took another twist when it was revealed that the husband had remarried in 2006. Despite his claims of desertion by his first wife, the court observed his intentions were clear.
“It would not be wrong to presume that he wanted to get rid of the present appellant and establish a relationship with the said lady,”
the court observed.
In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court’s judgment serves as a reminder of the evolving societal norms and the importance of recognizing individual rights and freedoms within a marriage. The decision underscores the principle that both partners in a marriage are equal and should be free to make independent decisions without undue interference.
