When Patriarchy Clouds The Law

By Sujit Bhar

In a powerful and significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court recently set aside a judgment delivered by a trial court in a divorce suit filed by a husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion by his wife. The High Court’s ruling, delivered by a Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, not only overturned the earlier dismissal of the husband’s petition, but also raised serious questions about the ideological biases and gendered lens through which the trial court judge approached the matter.

The High Court, while allowing the appeal, did not merely restrict its intervention to the merits of the case, it went a step further to censure the mindset reflected in the lower court’s judgment. In an unambiguous remark, the division bench stated: “The entire mindset of the learned trial judge appears to spring up from a patriarchal and condescending approach, thereby attributing a condescending role to the husband, to advise his wife properly and also to condone cruel acts of the wife by trying to ‘bridge the gap’ between the parties.”

This observation strikes at the core of what judicial reasoning ought not to be: shaped by personal, social, or ideological biases that obscure constitutional values and the impartiality expected of judges.

WHAT THE CASE WAS ABOUT

The husband had approached the trial court seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provide grounds for divorce on cruelty and desertion, respectively. The trial court, however, dismissed the petition, finding insufficient grounds for either claim. In doing so, the lower court relied heavily on an apparent moral obligation it assigned to the husband—to be a “guide” to his wife and to attempt further reconciliation despite the strained relationship.

This moralistic lens, according to the High Court, went beyond the legal scope of adjudication. The trial judge seemed to place the burden of salvaging the marriage on the husband alone, thereby misdirecting the essence of judicial neutrality.

The High Court’s decision is a reaffirmation of the importance of judicial neutrality. In reversing the lower court’s judgment, the bench examined the specific conduct of the wife, which included mental cruelty and abandonment, and concluded that the husband was entitled to relief.

More importantly, however, the High Court exposed the deeply entrenched biases that continue to affect judicial outcomes in India. By categorically labelling the trial judge’s mindset as “patriarchal and condescending,” the Court underscored the pressing need for the judiciary to rise above outdated social norms and reflect the progressive and egalitarian values enshrined in the Constitution.

PATRIARCHY, A BROADER SOCIAL REFLECTION

The High Court’s critique is not just a reprimand to an individual judge, but a mirror to the persistent patriarchal attitudes that pervade even the highest institutions. The role assigned by the trial court to the husband—as someone who must bear his wife’s misconduct and “guide” her—is symptomatic of a society that often sees men as natural leaders and women as inherently dependent, emotional, or irrational beings requiring correction or supervision.

Such a view not only infantilizes women, but also unfairly burdens men with the responsibility of “fixing” relationships without due consideration of the individual facts of each case.

The trial judge, in this case, appears to have forgotten a fundamental aspect of the judicial role—that of impartiality and adherence to legal standards, not personal morality. Despite years of judicial training and a constitutional mandate to ensure equal treatment, the judge allowed regressive social assumptions to cloud his reasoning. It is both alarming and disappointing that someone in such a powerful position could forsake the foundational principles of judicial fairness in favour of an ideological stance rooted in a bygone era.

A TROUBLING TREND

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Indian courts have, at various times, delivered judgments that betray personal or societal biases, especially in matters related to gender, sexuality, or cultural identity.

1. The Tarun Tejpal Case (2021)

In this high-profile sexual assault case, a sessions court in Goa acquitted journalist Tarun Tejpal. The judgment was widely criticized for its character assassination of the victim and its extensive references to her behaviour, attire, and personal choices. The judge noted that the victim was “not behaving like a sexual assault victim,” invoking stereotypes rather than relying on legal reasoning.

The Goa government appealed the judgment in the High Court, and the manner in which the sessions court approached the issue was seen as emblematic of the broader societal disbelief towards survivors of sexual violence.

2. Madras High Court on same-sex couples (2021)

While the final ruling in this case was progressive, the initial remarks made by the judge hearing the matter were deeply problematic. The judge admitted to his own lack of understanding and biases against homosexuality and even attempted to send a same-sex couple for counselling—implying that the couple’s orientation was something that needed to be “corrected”. Though the judge later underwent a transformation and delivered a forward-looking verdict, the case highlights how personal bias can initially colour judicial interpretation.

The Calcutta High Court’s remarks point to a systemic issue that demands urgent redressal. Judicial training must not only emphasize procedural and substantive law, but also focus on sensitization—especially on issues of gender, caste, religion, and sexuality. Judges, like all humans, are not immune to social conditioning. However, the onus lies on the judiciary to recognize, reflect on, and rectify these biases.

There must also be institutional mechanisms to evaluate judgments that reflect overt or covert bias. Peer reviews, appellate scrutiny, and continuing legal education can go a long way in fostering a more aware and accountable judiciary.

HOPE WITHIN PREJUDICE

The Calcutta High Court’s intervention in this case is not just a corrective for the aggrieved husband, but a broader assertion of constitutional values in the face of social regression. By openly calling out the trial judge’s patriarchal mindset, the High Court has sent a powerful message—that judicial reasoning cannot be allowed to regress into the morass of societal stereotypes.

This case should serve as a case study for judicial officers across the country. It reminds us that every individual who comes before the court is entitled to a fair hearing, free from the judge’s own ideological leanings or societal prejudices. While patriarchy may be deeply embedded in Indian society, its echoes within the judiciary must be silenced through robust introspection, training, and above all, unwavering adherence to the Constitution.

The judiciary is often seen as the final bastion of justice in a democracy. It must not falter under the weight of outdated worldviews. The Calcutta High Court’s judgment, bold and unapologetic in its language, is a testament to the judiciary’s potential to self-correct— and to strive always towards fairness, neutrality, and justice.

The post When Patriarchy Clouds The Law appeared first on India Legal.

This article first appeared on India Legal