Orissa High Court: A Division Bench comprising of B.P. Routray* and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ., dealt with a matrimonial application wherein the appellant-wife was accused of using derogatory remarks towards her husband-the respondent ridiculing him over his disability. The Court upheld the Family Court’s decision granting divorce which stated derogatory terms like “Nikhatu” and “Kempa” constituted mental cruelty, which was a valid ground for divorce.
Background:
The parties were married on 1-6-2016 in accordance with Hindu customs. The husband claimed that soon after marriage, his wife began mocking and passing comments regarding his physical condition. In September 2016, she left their matrimonial home and returned in January 2017 after negotiation. Despite her return, the husband alleged that the disrespectful behaviour continued, ultimately leading to her leaving matrimonial home again in March 2018. The wife later filed a criminal complaint under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 against the husband and his family.
In April 2019, the husband filed for divorce, citing cruelty. The Family Court, Puri evaluated major key issues, including whether the wife had treated husband cruelly and based on the available evidence, the Family Court ruled in favour of the husband. The wife filed the present appeal against the judgment passed by the Family Court, wherein the decree was granted in favour of her husband dissolving the marriage between them without any grant of permanent alimony.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court relied on V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337, wherein it was observed that “Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as the 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 also cited Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511, where it was opined that “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.”
The Court opined that the wife making statements like “Kempa, Nikhatu” against the husband towards his physical infirmity was causing mental cruelty. Further, the Court opined that a person was expected to give respect to another person in general and in the relationship of husband and wife, it was expected that the wife should support the husband despite his physical infirmity, if any.
The Court stated that in the present case, where the wife passed comments on her husband’s physical infirmity, it amounted to mental cruelty. Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the wife treated her husband with mental cruelty. Thus, the Court held that the criteria under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, were met, to grant the decree of divorce. However, it noted that issues related to permanent alimony and streedhan could not be addressed due to a lack of financial information about either party. The wife was granted liberty to approach the Family Court separately for resolution of those matters.
[X v. Y, MATA No. 264 of 2023, decided on 5-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice B.P Routray
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: M.B. Das, Advocate
For the Respondent: H. Mohapatra, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
