Orissa High Court
Sachidananda Patra vs Indumati Patra on 25 June, 2024
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.3 of 2022
Sachidananda Patra .... Appellant
-Versus-
Indumati Patra .... Respondent
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. Manas Chand, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 25th June, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. The husband is before us in appeal. He says he is
aggrieved by judgment dated 30th November, 2021 of the
Family Court, by which his petition for dissolution of the
marriage was dismissed on contest. Mr. Chand, learned
advocate appears on his behalf. Mr. Pattanaik, learned advocate
appears on behalf of respondent-wife.
2. Order sheet reveals parties had asked to be referred to
mediation. Furthermore, appellant-husband wanted respondent-
wife to agree to take permanent alimony at ₹15,00,000/- for
divorce by mutual consent. All efforts at reconciliation failed
and the appeal came up for hearing.
3. We had indicated to Mr. Chand for him to demonstrate
pleadings and proof regarding his client's contention of cruelty
meted out by respondent-wife. This was because Mr. Chand
had submitted earlier that cruelty was the only ground.
4. Mr. Chand refers us to the evidence on affidavit
notarized on 5th July, 2019, filed by his client. He draws
attention to paragraphs-5 and 6 in it. On query he submits,
allegations made therein were proved by his client.
5. We have perused paragraphs-5 and 6 of the evidence on
affidavit filed by appellant-husband. Keeping the allegations
made therein in mind we have also perused cross-examination
of respondent-wife as appearing from depositions dated 26th
July, 2021, 2nd August, 2021 and 23rd August, 2021. On careful
consideration of said depositions in cross-examination we have
not been able to find appellant-husband was able to make out a
case of cruelty. Allegations made in relied upon paragraphs of
the evidence on affidavit does not find mention in the
depositions, even as suggestions. The depositions appear to be
statement of facts, elicited from respondent-wife in cross-
examination. We appreciate therefrom, the marriage was
solemnized on 19th February, 2006 and at that time respondent-
wife was residing with her parents at Puri because she was
working in the civil Court there. They were blessed with a male
child on 2nd May, 2007, who unfortunately was discovered to
be suffering from ailments. There are clear statements of
respondent-wife regarding furniture brought to their rented
apartment by appellant-husband as given to him by his father.
Also there are statements that she provided finance for
up-keep of the family. Furthermore, she said in cross-
examination that she was not willing for second issue. Fact is
the couple had second issue. She said further that appellant-
husband occasionally took liquor and would have taken more
but for his financial situation. He also took tobacco (Gutkha).
All this she having said in cross-examination must be taken as
evidence because they were in answer to questions put on
behalf of appellant-husband. His case of cruelty meted out by
respondent-wife does not find any admission or corroboration
in the cross-examination.
6. In addition appellant-husband in his cross-examination,
in paragraph-23 of deposition dated 3rd March, 2020 had
admitted that in his affidavit evidence, paragraph-2 he had not
specifically mentioned regarding conduct and behaviour of
respondent-wife, which was not good. He admitted to have not
specifically described about incidents, from which he could
realize her conduct and behaviour were not good.
7. At this stage Mr. Chand submits, of late respondent-
wife had lodged complaint with the police, registered on 16 th
August, 2018 as FIR, pursuant to which Bhubaneswar Mahila
PS Case no.67 dated 16th August, 2018 was started. Certified
copies of order sheets in that connection were tendered as
exhibit-8 series in the civil proceeding. The complaint was false
and it amounts to cruelty. We, however, could not find any
suggestion to that effect given to respondent-wife, when she
was in the box and being cross-examined. In the circumstances,
veracity of her complaint in initiating the case or cases must
await adjudication and finding therein. So far as this case is
concerned, materials on record do not warrant interference with
impugned judgment.
8. We have not called upon Mr. Pattanaik to submit.
9. Impugned judgment is confirmed. We record our
observation that notwithstanding the confirmation, parties may
find reconciliation either by getting back together or in jointly
petitioning for mutual divorce, if they agree to do so in future.
10. The appeal is dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Radha/Jyostna
