Kolkata, May 26 — The Calcutta High Court has delivered a pointed and forceful reproach to a family court judge, denouncing remarks made in a recent divorce ruling as “deeply patriarchal and incompatible with the spirit of the Constitution.”
The censure came as the Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Ranjit Kumar Bag overturned a prior judgment which had denied a woman’s petition for divorce. The family court had earlier opined that minor quarrels and stern language from a husband are elements a wife must learn to endure, thereby dismissing the woman’s claims of mental cruelty.
Such reasoning, the High Court held, bears the unmistakable stamp of outdated thought. “No court, while interpreting laws governing matrimonial rights, may ignore the guarantees of dignity, liberty, and equality,” the Bench stated in its ruling.
JUDGMENT DRAWS LINE BETWEEN JUSTICE AND SOCIAL DOGMA
The woman in question had approached the family court citing emotional distress and persistent mental harassment. However, the trial judge’s observations suggested that a woman’s role was to uphold the marriage at all costs — even at the expense of her mental well-being.
The High Court categorically rejected this outlook, describing it as “an unfortunate residue of feudal attitudes.” The Bench added that treating the woman’s grievances as negligible amounted to trivialising her constitutional rights.
“The sanctity of marriage cannot demand the sacrifice of personal dignity,” the ruling affirmed.
LEGAL MINDS WELCOME THE REBUKE
The judgment has sparked widespread discussion within legal circles. Senior advocate Mr. Prabir Mallick remarked, “This is not merely a correction of law but a condemnation of harmful stereotypes that sometimes seep into judicial reasoning.”
Women’s rights organisations, too, hailed the verdict as a vital step towards aligning matrimonial law with the evolving standards of justice. “The message is loud and clear — courts are not to uphold societal bias under the guise of legal reasoning,” said Ms. Kiran Desai, head of the Bengal Legal Aid for Women.
CALL FOR SENSITISATION ACROSS JUDICIARY
The ruling has renewed demands for structured training of judicial officers, particularly in cases involving gender and personal liberty. Legal scholars suggest that periodic courses on constitutional morality and gender sensitivity must be instituted in judicial academies nationwide.
“Progressive law loses its purpose when interpreted through regressive lenses,” noted Dr. Ayesha Mukherjee, a legal academic at the National University of Juridical Sciences. “This case highlights the urgent need to cleanse the judiciary of inherited prejudices.”
A PRECEDENT ROOTED IN JUSTICE
With this decision, the Calcutta High Court has not merely set aside an erroneous verdict, but has drawn a clear boundary between personal bias and judicial duty. The ruling reiterates that personal liberty cannot be subsumed under cultural expectation, and that marriage cannot serve as a shield for injustice.
As India moves forward in its pursuit of legal reform and gender parity, this verdict stands as a beacon — reminding courts of their solemn duty to uphold the law in both letter and spirit.
