kolkata infertility cannot be a ground for divorce and deserting ones wife who is battling mental and physical health issues due to infertility is mental cruelty the calcutta high court has ruled the hc was hearing an appeal by a man for quashing of criminal charges slapped on him after he filed for mutual divorce citing persistent mental torment and agony caused by his wife who was battling mental health issues due to to primary infertility and premature menopause the couple were married for nine years and the wife a schoolteacher had also undergone treatment at bengalurus national institute of mental health and neurosciencesa month after the husband filed for divorce in june 2017 the wife filed criminal charges against him the beliaghata police filed a charge sheet against the husband on december 6 2017 implicating him for criminal breach of trust 406 ipc physical and mental cruelty 498a and voluntarily causing hurt 323 ipc the hc refused to interfere in the trial court proceedingsthe 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 who can help one to regain herhis mental physical and emotional strength to be able to face the world the society in general bravely together justice shampa dutt paul said justice shampa dutt paul said took exception to the timing of the husbands divorce petition it appears that the wife developed primary infertility with premature menopause which is a great mental shock for a woman who is yet to become a mother in addition further stress was added with the wifeoppositing party losing her mother who in such circumstances is a pillar of strength for a daughter during such times it is the duty of a spouse to be the strength which the other has lost she said in her order on tuesday the hc asked the husband what if the reverse had happened if the petitionerhusband had the problem would he not expect support from his wife to make a better life together the judge said 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 affected her life and health she added that in this case the definition of the word cruelty took on a different meaning altogether and this was cruelty under 498a ipc since it affected a persons life and healththe hc said the case diary and the charge sheet makes out a clear prima facie case of a cognizable offence against the accusedpetitioner and just because the hc had the power to quash a criminal case it should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecutionthe husband had questioned the months delay in filing of criminal charges after he had filed for divorce and argued this was deliberately and consciously done to negate the allegations in the divorce petition