Orissa High Court
Smt. Anuja Acharya vs Prabhudatta Achary on 5 February, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash
Corrected
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 06-Feb-2025 15:53:22
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 .... Appellant
in both the appeals
-versus-
Prabhudatta Achary .... Respondent
in both the appeals
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. Himanshu Bhusan Dash,
Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. D. Sahoo, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
JUDGMENT
th
5 February, 2025
B.P. Routray, J.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
(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
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
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.
10. Both the appeals are disposed of with aforesaid observation and
direction.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
M..K. Panda, P.A.
