The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 06-Feb-2025 15:53:22 Corrected IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA No. 94 & 95 of 2017 (From the common judgment dated 24th June, 2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam in Civil Proceeding No.314 of 2012 and Civil Proceeding No.102 of 2014) Smt. Anuja Acharya -versus- Prabhudatta Achary Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- …. …. Appellant in both the appeals Respondent in both the appeals For Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Bhusan Dash, Advocate For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. D. Sahoo, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH B.P. Routray, J. JUDGMENT 5th February, 2025 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Dash, learned counsel for the wife-Appellant in both the cases and Mr. D. Sahoo, learned counsel for husband – Respondent. 2. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 24th June, 2017 of learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur passed in C.P. No.314 of 2012 and C.P. No.102 of 2014. MATA No. 94 & 95 of 2017 Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 06-Feb-2025 15:53:22 3. The facts of the case in brief are that, the marriage between the parties took place on 24th June, 2010 and they stayed happily, continued with their conjugal life thereafter. In October, 2012 the husband met with an accident resulting his head injury and he was hospitalized. The wife filed C.P. No.314 of 2012 on 24th November, 2012 claiming maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act read with Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Pending adjudication of said proceeding, another proceeding in C.P. No.102 of 2014 was filed by the wife seeking dissolution of marriage and divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) on the ground of cruelty. 4. As per the allegations made by the wife in both the petitions, the husband and her in-law members demanded more dowry subsequently and started torturing her on that ground. It would not be out of place to mention here that a case was registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband as per the F.I.R. presented by the wife in the year 2013, i.e. Ganjam Mahila P.S. Case No.67 dated 6th June, 2013. MATA No. 94 & 95 of 2017 Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 06-Feb-2025 15:53:22 5. As it is seen from record, the wife did not make any serious allegations about torture in her initial petition for maintenance, i.e. C.P. No.314 of 2012, whereas she developed her case in the second proceeding, i.e. C.P. No.102 of 2014. Divorce on the ground of cruelty has been well settled by different pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, it is summerised as follows:- “101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive; (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. MATA No. 94 & 95 of 2017 Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 06-Feb-2025 15:53:22 (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii)Sustained reprehension conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii)The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset, may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. MATA No. 94 & 95 of 2017 Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 06-Feb-2025 15:53:22 (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such life situations, it may lead to mental cruelty”. 6. In A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22, the Supreme Court have held that a court dealing with a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty has to bear in mind the problems before it are those of human beings and the psychological changes in the conduct of the spouses have to be borne in mind before disposing of the petition for divorce. However, insignificant or trifling conduct MATA No. 94 & 95 of 2017 Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 06-Feb-2025 15:53:22 which may cause pain in mind, would not amount to cruelty and the court has to weigh the gravity and severity of the allegations of torture. Particularly the irritations and quarrels between spouses will not amount to cruelty. 7. In the case at hand, according to the wife-Appellant, the husband has tortured her and compelled to leave the matrimonial home. It is seen that the allegations leveled by her are mostly falling under the category of ill-treatment, but not torture. It is true that some kinds of ill-treatment may amount to torture, but what has been specifically stated by the wife in her evidence is in our opinion not all would attract the ground of cruelty. The conduct of the wife, particularly after the husband met with the accident resulting his brain injury and hospitalization, does not add credibility to her allegations regarding torture met upon her. Upon detailed analysis of the evidences and materials so brought on record, learned trial Judge has rightly concluded them as ordinary wear and tear of marital life and not the components of cruelty. We upon going through the entire record and evidences produced from both sides are inclined to agree with the finding of learned Judge, Family Court to refuse the prayer for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The allegations MATA No. 94 & 95 of 2017 Page 6 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 06-Feb-2025 15:53:22 made and the materials brought are hardly speaking of any ground to satisfy cruelty on the wife to entitle her for the prayer of divorce. As such, the learned Judge has rightly refused divorce between the parties. 8. Next coming to the prayer of grant of maintenance, it is admitted by both parties that they are now residing separately. Further, the wife is getting Rs.8000/- for maintenance and residence in a proceeding filed by her under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act) in Misc. Case No.67 of 2019. However, it is submitted that the husband is not paying any maintenance till date. 9. Since the wife has already been directed to be paid maintenance of Rs.8000/- in the proceeding under the PWDV Act, we restrain ourselves from passing any order in the present prayer of the wife to get maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. We leave it open for the parties to raise such claim in future in case the direction for payment of maintenance to the wife is waived or modified. MATA No. 94 & 95 of 2017 Page 7 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 06-Feb-2025 15:53:22
Decision
10. Both the appeals are disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. (B.P. Routray) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge M..K. Panda, P.A. MATA No. 94 & 95 of 2017 Page 8 of 8