Orissa High Court
Kshirod Kumar Sahoo vs Lopamudra Sahoo on 13 January, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.82 of 2022
.... Appellant
Kshirod Kumar Sahoo
-versus-
Lopamudra Sahoo .... Respondent
Learned advocates appeared in the case:
For Appellant : Mr. M.K. Pati, Advocate
For respondent : In Person
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment: 13th January, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, J.
1. Appellant is husband, who is aggrieved by judgment dated
20th April, 2022 of the Family Court, dismissing the civil proceeding
initiated by his client, for dissolution of the marriage. Mr. Pati,
learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and
respondent wife, appears in person. Here we reproduce below
paragraph-3 from our order dated 22nd August, 2024.
"3. Respondent-wife submits, she wants to salvage
the marriage. She and her daughter need presence
of appellant with them. On observation made
regarding her omission to file restitution case or at
least make a counter claim she submits, restitution
case was advised and would have been filed but for
demise of her engaged learned advocate.
Subsequently, her learned advocate engaged in the
High Court also passed away. On further query
regarding her joining appellant to file for divorce by
mutual consent on agreed permanent alimony, she
submits, she is ready to compensate appellant for
any wrong she may have done to him."
2. Mr. Pati submits, the marriage was solemnized on 1st May,
2015. Respondent stayed with his client for only about five months.
After a while she wanted that his client should move away from his
old and ailing parents, to live separately with her. Furthermore, she
had permanent job as Assistant Revenue Inspector, while his client
was a contractual employee. On query made we are told that
subsequently respondent got promotion to became Revenue Inspector.
MATA no.82 of 2022
Appellant too had his job confirmed, though respondent earned and
still earns more than him.
3. Mr. Pati submits, it was cruel on part of respondent to require
his client to move away leaving his old parents to fend for
themselves. Furthermore, she caused deep emotional hurt in
comparing their situation in respect of their respective employment
and income. His client took every possible step for medical assistance
during birth of their daughter. However, there has been more than
nine years of separation. His client is not in a frame of mind to be
reunited with respondent.
4. Mr. Pati relies on judgment of the Supreme Court. Firstly, on
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511, the
instance in paragraph 101 saying that long separation itself may
amount to mental cruelty. He then relies upon K. Srinivas Rao v.
D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226, paragraph 24 (Manupatra
print). The paragraph is reproduced below.
"In our opinion, the High Court wrongly held that
because the Appellant-husband and the Respondent-
wife did not stay together there is no question of the
parties causing cruelty to each other. Staying
together under the same roof is not a pre-condition
MATA no.82 of 2022
for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty
by his or her conduct even while he or she is not
staying under the same roof. In a given case, while
staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to
the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory
letters or notices or filing complaints containing
indecent allegations or by initiating number of
judicial proceedings making the other spouse's life
miserable. This is what has happened in this case."
He seeks interference in appeal for reversal of impugned judgment.
5. We have not called upon respondent to answer. This is
because as would appear from above reproduced paragraph-3 in order
dated 22nd August, 2024, respondent wants to be reunited. That she
did not file any other complaint against appellant nor initiated
criminal proceeding is a fact. There is material on record to show
respondent was covering long distance to her workplace, while
staying at the matrimonial home.
6. Appellant says he is deeply hurt and does not want to be
reunited. Respondent wants to be with him and for the daughter to
have both her parents, with her. The trial Court, on having gone into
the facts said, no case on cruelty was made out by appellant. We have
not found factual error nor error of law in impugned judgment. Where
MATA no.82 of 2022
there has been long separation, it may amount to an instance of
mental cruelty. Even if we accept appellant's contention that
respondent wanted him to separately stay with her, away from his
parents, the parents are still alive, as we have ascertained and
respondent wants to be reunited anyhow. In the circumstances, though
we cannot compel the parties to reunite but we do confirm impugned
judgment to mean that parties remain legally married to each other.
7. Impugned judgment is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
( Arindam Sinha )
Judge
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge
Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 15-Jan-2025 11:24:26
MATA no.82 of 2022
