The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA No. 315 of 2023 AND MATA No. 316 of 2023 Madhusmita Samanta …. Appellant Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate -versus- Rajesh Singh …. Opposite Parties Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Senior Advocate along with Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 19.03.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J.: 1. By means of this appeal, the Appellant has challenged the joint judgment dated 07.08.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, granting the dissolution of marriage subject to payment of Rs.63,00,000/- towards permanent alimony in C.P. No. 153/2009, filed by the Respondent, and consequently, MATA Nos. 315/316 of 2023 Page 1 of 24 dismissing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights in C.P. No. 531/2009. 2. The background facts of the case are that, the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnised on 11.05.2003, in Cuttack. After the marriage, they resided in their matrimonial house in Haripur, Jagatsinghpur, and subsequently resided in Bhubaneswar, Bangalore, USA, Japan, etc. Their marriage soon became strained, with the Respondent alleging that the Appellant pressured him to sever ties with his parents, demanded financial control by insisting on being the sole nominee in his insurance policies, and frequently engaged in quarrels. On the other hand, the Appellant accused the Respondent of emotional neglect, financial control, and isolation, stating that he restricted her access to money and humiliated her in front of others After facing continuous marital discord, the Respondent filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in C.P. No. 153/2009, seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, where he alleged that the Appellant’s conduct had made it impossible for him to continue the marriage. His primary grievances included constant quarrels, financial control, and the forced eviction of his elderly parents from their home by the Appellant and local goons. In response to the divorce petition, the Appellant contested the allegations and sought to prevent the dissolution of the marriage. To counter the Respondent’s claim, she subsequently filed C.P. No. 531/2009 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights. She denied all allegations and claimed that the Respondent abandoned her without justifiable cause and that she had always been willing to reconcile MATA Nos. 315/316 of 2023 Page 2 of 24 and resume cohabitation, but the Respondent refused to continue the marriage by being influenced by his parents. She contended that her marital rights had been unfairly denied. 3. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, delivered a consolidated judgment, addressing both cases together. The Court granted the prayer for divorce in C.P. No. 153/2009, holding that the Appellant’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It also observed that her persistent behaviour of quarrelling, financial control, and acts of intimidation against the parents of the Respondent, when she, along with local goons, forcibly ousted the Respondent’s elderly parents, deeming it a significant act of cruelty. Consequently, since the marriage was legally dissolved, the Court dismissed the Appellant’s prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, in C.P. No. 531/2009. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, submits that the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2023, passed by the Family Court, Cuttack, is erroneous, legally unsustainable, and liable to be set aside. He contends that the dispute arose not from any cruelty inflicted by her but due to the Respondent’s deliberate desertion and abandonment of the marital relationship. Her bona fide intention to resume cohabitation was clearly demonstrated by filing C.P. No. 531/2009 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Mr. Bose argues that the Family Court misinterpreted the concept of mental cruelty, wrongly equating marital disputes, financial disagreements, and conflicts with in-laws with cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The allegation that she forcibly ousted the Respondent’s parents is baseless and MATA Nos. 315/316 of 2023 Page 3 of 24 unsupported by independent evidence, with the court relying only on the Respondent’s family’s testimonies. Additionally, the multiple legal cases filed by her were a legitimate exercise of her legal rights and cannot be construed as cruelty or harassment. It is further contended that the Family Court proceeded with the divorce decree despite ongoing mediation efforts before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Instead of awaiting the outcome, the court adjudicated the matter prematurely, causing serious prejudice. Mr. Bose highlighted another error in presuming that the marriage was irretrievably broken, despite this not being a statutory ground for divorce. According to Mr. Bose, the Court overlooked documentary evidence such as emails, flight tickets, and communication records that demonstrated her attempts to maintain the marital bond, and the learned Court, without providing sufficient opportunities for reconciliation, wrongly concluded that cohabitation was impossible. Mr. Bose asserts that with respect to financial relief, the Court’s award of ₹63,00,000/- as permanent alimony is grossly inadequate considering the Respondent’s substantial income and assets. Despite multiple I.A. filed for enhanced financial support, the court failed to properly adjudicate these claims. Mr. Bose finally concludes his argument stating that the judgment is based on conjecture and surmises, wrongly assuming that the Appellant was unwilling to cooperate in the marriage and for these reasons, the Appellant prays that this Hon’ble Court set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Family Court, Cuttack, and allow her appeal in restoring her matrimonial rights. MATA Nos. 315/316 of 2023 Page 4 of 24 5. Mr. B. Bhuyan, the learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the present appeal filed by the Appellant-Wife is devoid of merit and is merely an attempt to prolong the litigation and harass him despite the Family Court’s well-reasoned decision granting him a decree of divorce in C.P. No. 153/2009. He further submits that the Appellant’s claims of false abandonment and willingness to cohabit were rightly rejected, as her conduct was found to be inconsistent with a spouse seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Mr. Bhuyan highlights that the Appellant systematically harassed the Respondent and his family by filing multiple false cases, including over 45 FIRs against him and his family members. The Respondent, who resided abroad for employment, has been forced to defend himself in multiple jurisdictions and has been subjected to continuous harassment at the hands of the Appellant. Mr. Bhuyan asserts that the repeated abuse of legal processes was solely intended to create mental distress for the Respondent and to prevent him from leading a peaceful life. This pattern of malicious litigation further reinforces the cruelty inflicted upon the Respondent, justifying the dissolution of the marriage. He further argues that the Appellant’s deliberate acts of financial manipulation and suppression of facts played a significant role in the dispute. She was awarded interim maintenance in 2017, yet she intentionally withheld this information from the Court while filing additional maintenance claims under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The most egregious act of cruelty on the part of the Appellant was her forcible ousting of the Respondent’s elderly parents from their home in Hariharpur, Jagatsinghpur, by bringing MATA Nos. 315/316 of 2023 Page 5 of 24 local goons to threaten them, which was witnessed by the neighbours vide their sworn testimonies. Mr. Bhuyan further submits that the appeal lacks any substantial legal ground, as the Appellant has failed to point out any fundamental error in the Family Court’s judgment. The findings of the Family Court are based on well-documented evidence, including the Respondent’s consistent pleadings, witness testimonies, and legal precedents supporting his claim of cruelty. The Appellant’s attempt to challenge the divorce decree is nothing but a desperate measure to prolong the litigation and continue exerting control over the Respondent’s life. The Respondent, who has dutifully complied with all Court procedures, has been forced to return to India repeatedly to address these matters, which has caused undue hardship in both his personal and professional life, and subsequently led him to resign from his job last year. Mr. Bhuyan finally concludes his argument, stating that in light of the overwhelming evidence of cruelty, misuse of legal processes, and clear findings of the Family Court, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. The main grounds for challenging the impugned judgment dissolving the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent are as follows, that – a) The learned trial Court considered the filing of multiple cases by the wife as an act of cruelty, failing to recognise that seeking legal remedies and challenging orders are legitimate rights and cannot be equated with mental cruelty. MATA Nos. 315/316 of 2023 Page 6 of 24 b) The trial Court proceeded with the divorce decree despite being informed that mediation was pending before both the Hon’ble High Court vide CRLMC No. 2174 of 2021 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (CRL) No. 6956/23. It should have adjourned the proceedings and awaited the mediation outcome instead of prematurely dissolving the marriage. c) The judgment proceeded on the assumption that the parties could not live together, without any substantive proof that reconciliation was impossible. No concrete evidence was provided to show that the wife had inflicted mental cruelty on the husband. d) The Court based the judgment on conjectures and surmises rather than evidence in concluding that the wife was not interested in returning to the husband’s company. The Court ignored the fact that the wife had already filed a case for restitution of conjugal rights (C.P. No. 531/2009), which itself proves her intention to continue the marriage. Granting divorce on the ground that she was unwilling to cooperate was contrary to the facts on record. 7. Having regard to the abovementioned grounds, the learned Family Court, Cuttack, found that the filing of multiple legal cases, including over 45 FIRs, was not merely an exercise of legal rights but a deliberate attempt to harass and intimidate the Respondent and his family. It was held that while seeking legal remedies is a legitimate right, the misuse of legal processes to pressurise a spouse constitutes cruelty, justifying the dissolution of the marriage. MATA Nos. 315/316 of 2023 Page 7 of 24 Regarding the presumption that the parties could not live together, the Court did not make this assumption arbitrarily but based its conclusion on clear findings that reconciliation was neither practical nor desirable, given the history of disputes, legal battles, and separation. Furthermore, the Court held that the Appellant’s filing of a restitution of conjugal rights petition (C.P. No. 531/2009) was contradicted by her actions, including filing multiple cases against the Respondent and allegedly ousting his elderly parents from their home. The Court reasoned that a mere formal request for restitution could not override overwhelming evidence demonstrating the impossibility of cohabitation. Accordingly, the Family Court granted the Respondent-Husband a decree of divorce in C.P. No. 153/2009 and dismissed the Appellant-Wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights in C.P. No. 531/2009, concluding that the marriage was beyond repair and that forcing the parties to continue cohabitation would be unjust. It is true that the Court below did not address the order of mediation pending before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, since the parties had remained estranged for an extended period, and the Respondent having clearly refused to cohabit due to emotional distress, the Court found no justification to delay the proceedings further. 8. Having regard to the grounds raised by the Appellant-Wife in challenging the impugned judgment, as well as the Family Court’s findings, we find it imperative to examine the overall circumstances of the case. MATA Nos. 315/316 of 2023 Page 8 of 24 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa reported in [2013] 2 S.C.R. 126, has observed that – 15. In Naveen Kohli1, the wife had filed several complaints and cases against the husband. This Court viewed her conduct as a conduct causing mental cruelty and observed that the finding of the High Court that these proceedings could not be taken to be such which may warrant annulment of marriage is wholly unsustainable. 16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh2, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the Court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse. 10. The first contention raised by the Appellant is that the filing of multiple cases cannot amount to mental cruelty as it is her legitimate right to seek legal remedies. However, while the mere filing of cases may not always constitute cruelty, when the legal process is abused to cause constant harassment and mental agony, it crosses into the realm of mental cruelty. In the said case, where the wife had filed several complaints and cases against the husband, the Court held that the filing of repeated false complaints and cases, in the facts of the case, amounted to causing mental cruelty. In the instant case, where the Appellant has filed over 45 FIRs along with numerous civil and criminal proceedings against the Respondent