In a recent judgment, the Calcutta High Court has sharply criticized a trial court for its ex parte dismissal of a husband's divorce petition, originally filed on grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya and Justice Uday Kumar, passed the order on May 22, 2025, allowing the husband's appeal and granting him a decree of divorce.

The case dates back to 2015, when the husband filed for divorce, alleging that his wife had subjected him to cruelty and deserted him. However, in February 2018, the trial court dismissed the petition ex parte, prompting the appellant-husband to challenge the decision before the High Court.

The High Court noted that while the respondent-wife had filed a written statement, she failed to adduce any evidence or cross-examine the petitioner. Despite this, the trial court proceeded to deliver its judgment without addressing the absence of contesting evidence from her side.

Expressing serious concern over the trial court’s handling of the case, the Division Bench observed that the presiding judge had rendered the decision based on a “tangential perception” rather than engaging with the facts and evidence on record. “Even a cursory reading of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned judge proceeded entirely on a tangential perception of his own,” the Bench remarked.

The Court was particularly critical of the trial court’s failure to consider the wife's lack of participation during the evidentiary stage. Highlighting this oversight, it noted, “The trial court overlooked the fact that the wife did not lead any evidence of her own despite filing a written statement, nor did she cross-examine the husband.”

While refraining from making a formal adverse remark that could impact the trial judge's career, the High Court did issue a stern caution. It warned the judicial officer against relying on copy-pasted judgments and “wishful imagination” in place of a proper examination of facts and evidence. “The Division Bench expects that the learned trial judge concerned shall, in future, be aware of copy-pasting his previous judgments and going on his tangential curve of wishful imagination instead of adverting to the facts and materials on record,” the Court said.

It further added that if such conduct is repeated, the matter may be formally recorded in the judge’s service book.

Given the unchallenged testimony of the appellant-husband and the absence of evidence from the respondent-wife, the High Court concluded that a case of cruelty had been established and accordingly granted the divorce.