Orissa High Court
Madhusudan Panigrahi vs Debadarsini Sahoo @ Alaka on 7 January, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 80 of 2021
(Through hybrid mode)
Madhusudan Panigrahi .... Appellant
-versus-
Debadarsini Sahoo @ Alaka .... Respondent
Advocates appear in the case:
For appellant: Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate
For respondent: Mr. Umakanta Mahapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates of hearing: 5th September, 2024 and 7th January, 2025
Date of Judgment: 7th January, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. The husband is appellant. He is aggrieved by judgment dated
18th September, 2021 of the Family Court, dismissing his petition for
dissolution of the marriage. Mr. Lenka, learned advocate appears on
his behalf while Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate virtually appears on
behalf of respondent-wife.
2. It appears from submissions made at the Bar, the husband had
earlier filed for restitution, withdrew it and then filed for divorce. On
query made Mr. Lenka submits, his client did not prosecute the
restitution case to obtain judgment.
3. On perusal of impugned judgment it appears the Family Court
was not convinced that appellant had meted out cruelty to respondent.
From materials available on record said Court found absolutely no
substantial or grave cause for separating the parties. The learned Judge
recorded intention expressed by respondent for resumption of married
life after they fell apart in year 2015. Mr. Lenka submits, long
separation itself amounts to mental cruelty as an instance given by the
Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4
SCC 511. He submits further that reckless allegation was made by
respondent regarding his client having affair with his elder brother's
wife. He points out from submission paragraph-1 in the written
statement, allegation was made of the sister-in-law running out from
the kitchen into her bedroom in the evening on 11th December, 2014.
She was crying and appellant followed her. Respondent noticing this
also followed to find appellant tightly hugging his sister-in-law and
blindly kissing her. That, according to respondent, was beginning of
her miserable life. He submits, the allegation is vague, untrue and
further indication of cruel bent of mind of respondent towards his
client. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Vijaykumar
Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate reported in 2003
(6) SCC 334, regarding reckless allegation made in the pleadings in
itself being a ground of cruelty. He then relies on view taken by
coordinate Bench, inter alia, following Vijaykumar Ramchandra
Bhate (supra) in Ganesh Prasad v. Laxmirani Khatua reported in
2023 (II) OLR 157.
4. Considering the complaint of allegation was made in the
written statement, we perused deposition in cross-examination of
respondent. The deposition carries paragraphs 20 to 34 in cross-
examination. There was not a single question put to respondent
regarding the allegation. In our view, the allegation thus stood proved
as a fact.
5. Our further view is, appellant was insincere in filing for
restitution. His object was to obtain divorce. We have no reason to
differ with finding facts made by the Family Court regarding there
being no grave cause for parties to separate.
6. Impugned judgment is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Sks
