The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA NO.77 OF 2024 An appeal arising out judgment dated 12.12.2023 and decree dated 23.12.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Boudh in C.P. No.35 of 2022. -------------- Putuli Joshi @ Mahapatra ...… Appellant -Versus- Sanjay Kumar Mahapatra .…. Respondent Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate _______________________________________________________ CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J. J U D G M E N T 03.07.2025 This matrimonial appeal by the wife calls in question the judgment dated 12.12.2023 and pursuant decree dated 23.12.2023, whereby respondent-husband’s CP No. 35 of 2022 filed under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 having been favoured, learned Family Court Judge, Boudh has dissolved the marriage between the parties. He has also ordered “The petitioner-husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only to the respondent-wife Page 1 of 7 towards permanent alimony within three months hence, failing which the respondent-wife will be at liberty to enforce it through court.” (sic) 2. Averments of parties in brief: (a) Both the parties are Hindus. Husband is now aged 38 years and wife 29 years. He is employed as Data Entry Operator at Charichhak Block Office. Their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2018 as per customs and rituals obtaining in their caste, at the residence of the wife. Theirs was a cat & dog life. Wife and her parents were forcing the husband to establish a separate matrimonial home away from his parents. On 20.09.2018, wife’s parents & two sisters came to the place of husband and had an altercation with his parents, when he was away in office. Disregarding the request of his parents to calm down, wife’s parents returned with their daughter to their place, along with all her gold ornaments. This was when the wife was carrying. (b) Whilst staying with her parents at Boudh, the wife gave birth to a male baby on 22.01.2019 at District Hospital. However, no birth rituals & naming ceremony were performed. On 28.08.2020, the husband & his mother along with a Mediator accompanied by relatives brought back the wife to the matrimonial home. On being asked as to what happened to the gold ornaments, the wife assured him that they would come back before long. However, despite long lapse of time, they did not. Strangely, on 13.09.2020, wife’s parents & sisters, having had altercation with the husband, whisked away the wife & new born to their place. (c) Husband had sent two notices through his counsel, which the wife refused to receive. To his dismay, on 13.09.2020, wife’s father lodged an Page 2 of 7 FIR in Boudh Police Station falsely alleging spousal cruelty & other such offences. Wife had filed M.C. No.40 of 2020 claiming maintenance under PWDV Act in the Court of SDJM, Boudh. She has been staying away from the matrimonial home that too keeping the baby away from its father. Despite all efforts, she has not returned to the matrimonial home and that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for all this. Husband alleging cruelty & desertion moved the subject CP seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage. After appearance, wife filed her written statement resisting the CP, wherein she alleged dowry demand and acts of mental cruelty and physical assault. She also mentioned that she was driven out from the house by the husband & his parents, that too when she was carrying. Whilst staying together, often she was made to starve. (d) When the baby was 19 months old, the husband & his parents visited the place of wife and took her back with the child on 28.08.2020. After rejoining the matrimony, again all they perpetrated same unlawful acts and all that became intolerable. Therefore, the above criminal case was filed by her father, who came and took the wife & kid to the natal place. The family of the husband owns 14 acres of agricultural land. He is well placed. Despite that, he is greedy & cruel. It is not the wife who has perpetrated cruelty but the husband & his parents qua the wife. 3. Issues & evidence: On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following principal issues: “(i) Whether the civil proceeding is maintainable? Page 3 of 7 (ii) Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to initiate proceeding? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage on the ground of cruelty? (iv) To what other relief(s) the petitioner is entitled?” To substantiate petition averments, the husband got examined himself as PW 1 and his father as PW 2. Other lady was examined as PW 3. In his depositions, as many as 12 documents were produced and they were marked as Exts.1 to 12. The case papers in CT No.599 of 2020 were marked in 12 series. From the side of wife, she got herself examined as RW 1. Her father was examined as RW 2 & her mother was examined as RW 3. Her sister was examined as RW 4. From her side, 8 documents came to be marked & produced as Exts.A to F. After perusing the pleadings and considering the record of evidence, learned Family Court Judge granted the impugned judgment & decree that are put in challenged before us. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having interacted with parties present before us and having perused the papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: (a) The version of the husband does not generate confidence, his witnesses being interested ones. His contention that the parents of the wife came and whisked her away to her natal place after quarreling with the parents of husband, is not vouched by cogent evidentiary material. The fact that the wife was carrying and later delivered the baby goes to Page 4 of 7 show that the couple was having happy times in life. At least, such a presumption howsoever weak would arise as to cohabitation & happy living. Except the self-serving statement of the husband, who was examined as PW 1, there is nothing worth mentioning. In a tradition bound society like ours, a heavy onus lies on the husband to demonstrate that the wife has perpetrated acts of cruelty and deserted the matrimony. (b) It is not the case of husband that the wife is educationally qualified or that she has been gainfully employed. Nor it is his case that her parental family has got arms long & strong. It is difficult to believe that without any justification a pregnant woman would leave her husband’s place after raising the quarrel. In fact, wife herself has led evidence which would not only show that she had not quarreled but it is he who ill-treated her. Assuming that the wife was unjustifiably quarrelling, why the husband did not hand even a rupee for the delivery and for bringing up the baby, which she did single handedly. Our law & scriptures mandate “bharta rakshati yauvane” meaning it is the duty of husband to look after the wife, and children as well, when they are incapable of looking after themselves. Absolutely, no explanation is forthcoming as to why this legal and moral duty has not been discharged. Even here, during our interaction with the parties, no explanation is offered. (c) Learned Judge of the Court below having lost the realities of marital life of people has mindlessly entered the impugned judgment & decree. The said mindlessness escalates to the higher level, when he directed payment of a paltry sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh) for the wife & child by way of permanent alimony. In these difficult days, when bread is costlier than blood, how the mother & child can hold their Page 5 of 7 body and soul together, is un-understandable to say the least. This apart, learned Judge has ignored rudimentary principles of matrimonial jurisdiction, inasmuch as he has been swayed away by the shabby pleadings of husband and unverified testimony of his witnesses. The evidence on record is not properly weighed and inferences have not been drawn. (d) No reasonable person trained in law would have entered the impugned judgment & decree on the basis of evidentially material on record. The very approach of the learned trial Judge is juridically defective viewed from any angle. In our considered opinion, if there is any cruelty, it is attributable to the husband himself, who has not bothered to pay even the decreetal sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh) or any part thereof, as directed by the Court below all these years. He may have difference or dispute with the spouse; what defence he has for not paying for bring up the child, remains as a big question. The only plausible explanation is inhuman nature of husband. That cannot go with impunity. (e) There is one happy development that happened in the open Court: Learned counsel for the husband, on instructions of his client present before us, submitted that his client would pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh) as directed by the Court below, and that the wife should put it in a long term bank deposit for the benefit of and in trust for the growing child. Only because of that, we are restraining ourselves from levying exemplary costs on the husband for having troubled the innocent & hapless wife all these years. In the above circumstances, this appeal is allowed and impugned judgment & decree are set aside; husband’s CP No. 35 of 2022 Page 6 of 7 is dismissed. The husband is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh) only in four equalized monthly instalments, failing which he shall be liable to pay Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand) per month to the wife & child towards their expenditure, though they reside in the matrimonial home. ……..………………………. Dixit Krishna Shripad, Judge ……..………………………. M.S.Sahoo, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 3rd July, 2025/Dutta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 09-Jul-2025 15:34:29 Page 7 of 7