Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash dismissed an appeal filed by the wife challenging a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Puri. The Court upheld the finding that the husband had been subjected to mental cruelty, observing that the conduct of the wife amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court confirmed the divorce and clarified that issues relating to permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties may be agitated independently before the Family Court under Sections 25 and 27 of the Act.

The appellant-wife filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dated 10 July 2023 passed by the Family Court, Puri in Civil Proceeding No.123 of 2019. The Family Court had granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband, dissolving the marriage between the parties, without awarding permanent alimony. The wife contested the decree on the ground that the husband had failed to prove cruelty, which was cited as the basis for seeking dissolution of marriage.

Also Read: Right To Do Business Includes Right To Shut Down | Supreme Court Upholds Article 19(1)(g) Protection

According to the wife, it was the husband who compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. She had been residing separately at her parental house since 25 March 2018. The parties were married on 1 June 2016 under Hindu rites and customs.

The husband alleged that the wife repeatedly made derogatory comments regarding his physical disability, which led to severe mental distress and conflicts. He claimed that shortly after the marriage, on 15 September 2016, the wife left the matrimonial home but returned on 5 January 2017 after negotiations. However, her conduct allegedly remained the same, leading to further tension. On 25 March 2018, she left the house again, and subsequently filed a criminal case against the husband and his family members under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and other provisions.

The husband filed the divorce petition on 3 April 2019, citing cruelty. He examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2. The wife, while cross-examining the witnesses, did not produce any evidence or examine witnesses on her own behalf.

The Family Court framed five issues, including whether the wife subjected the husband to mental cruelty. All issues were decided in favour of the husband. The Family Court granted the divorce based on the husband's testimony and corroboration by the second witness. The wife's appeal was directed against this finding.

In the High Court, the wife contended that the allegations were unproven and that no material evidence was presented to substantiate the claim of cruelty. She also sought directions regarding permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties.

The husband, through counsel, maintained that his physical disability was ridiculed by the wife and that her conduct caused him unbearable mental agony. The husband supported the decree of divorce and submitted that the Family Court had rightly found mental cruelty in the facts and circumstances.

The Court recorded, “It is not disputed that the Husband is a physically handicapped person.” Referring to the evidence, the Court noted, “As borne out from the evidence of the Husband (P.W.1) that, the Wife is passing comments to her Husband saying ‘Kempa, Nikhatu, etc.’”

The Court stated, “Though the Wife has cross-examined the Husband, but did not suggest anything to rebut such statements made on the part of the Husband.” It further observed, “It is also admitted by the Wife that, she has initiated a criminal proceeding against the Husband and other in-law members.”

On the testimony of the supporting witness, the Court recorded, “P.W.2 in his evidence has corroborated the statements of P.W.1 regarding the aspersions made by the Wife towards his physical infirmity and here also the Wife did not able to rebut such contentions of P.W.2 made during his evidence.”

Discussing the legal scope of mental cruelty, the Court cited V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337, “Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other.” The Court continued, “It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner.”

The Court also referred to Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, “There cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of ‘mental cruelty’ within which all kinds of cases can be covered.” It stated, “The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.”

After applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court held, “This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with cruelty owing to his physical deformity.” It concluded, “Thus we are inclined with the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri that the Wife has treated her Husband with mental cruelty.”

The Court affirmed, “We thus confirm the impugned judgment granting the decree of divorce between the parties dissolving their marriage.”

Also Read: Sikkim HC Acquits Man in POCSO Case | Reliance on Victim’s Vacillating Testimony Would Be a Travesty of Justice

The Court confirmed the judgment of the Family Court, Puri, which had granted a decree of divorce between the parties on the ground of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

On the question of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties, the Court left the matter open, stating, “With regard to grant of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties, as claimed by the Appellant-Wife, are left open to her to be agitated before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in terms of Sections 25 & 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.”

The Court further clarified, “There is no material produced on record with regard to income of the Husband or the Wife and in absence of any material, we are unable to decide the question of permanent alimony here.”

The Court finally stated, “With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. M.B. Das, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. H. Mohapatra, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v. YYY

Case Number: MATA No. 264 of 2023

Bench: Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray, Justice Chittaranjan Dash

[Read/Download order]