Orissa High Court
Bibhu Ranjan Patra vs Suprava Patra on 12 March, 2025
Bench: B.P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash
Corrected
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 17-Mar-2025 14:41:14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 168 of 2017
(From the judgment dated 29th November, 2017 of learned Judge,
Family Court Dhenkanal passed in C.P. No.25 of 2016)
Bibhu Ranjan Patra .... Appellant
-versus-
Suprava Patra .... Respondent
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty,
Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
along with Ms. S. Rout, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
JUDGMENT
12th March, 2025
By The Bench.
1. Heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant -
husband and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned senior counsel along with Ms.
S. Rout, learned counsel for the Respondent - wife.
2. Present appeal is directed against impugned judgment dated 29th
November, 2017 of learned Judge, Family Court Dhenkanal passed
Designation: Personal Assistant
in C.P. No.25 of 2016, wherein the prayer for divorce under Section
13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act at the instance of the husband has
been refused.
3. The marriage between the parties took place on 3rd March, 2013.
Within the few months of stay of the bride in the matrimonial house
the relationship was not at all congenial. There is evidence of
allegations and counter allegations including the fact that the
marriage never consummated and admittedly the husband and wife
stayed separately since 21st December, 2013. A criminal case was
also instituted by the wife against the husband and other in-law
members.
4. Section 13(1) and 13(1A) of the HM Act read thus:
"13. Divorce.- Any marriage solemnised, whether
before or after the commencement of this Act,
may, on a petition presented by either the
husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree
of divorce on the ground that the other party-
(i) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage,
had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person
other than his or her spouse; or
(ia) has, after the solemnisation of the marriage,
treated the petitioner with cruelty; or
Designation: Personal Assistant
(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a
continuous period of not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of the
petition; or
(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to
another religion; or
(iii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has
been suffering continuously or intermittently from
mental disorder of such a kind and to such an
extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be
expected to live with the respondent.
Explanation.- In this clause-
(a) the expression "mental disorder" means
mental illness, arrested or incomplete
development of mind, psychopathic disorder or
any other disorder or disability of mind and
includes schizophrenia;
(b) the expression "psychopathic disorder"
means a persistent disorder or disability of mind
(whether or not including subnormality of
intelligence) which results in abnormally
aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on
the part of the other party, and whether or not it
requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or
(iv) ... ... ... ...
(v) has been suffering from venereal disease in
a communicable form; or
(vi) has renounced the world by entering any
religious order; or
(vii) has not been heard of as being alive for a
period of seven years or more by those persons
who would naturally have heard of it, had that
party been alive;
Designation: Personal Assistant
Explanation.-In this subsection, the expression
"desertion" means the desertion of the petitioner
by the other party to the marriage without
reasonable cause and without the consent or
against the wish of such party, and includes the
wilful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to
the marriage, and its grammatical variations and
cognate expressions shall be construed
accordingly.
(1A) Either party to a marriage, whether
solemnised before or after the commencement of
this Act, may also present a petition for the
dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce
on the ground-
(i) that there has been no resumption of
cohabitation as between the parties to the
marriage for a period of one year or upwards after
the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a
proceeding to which they were parties; or
(ii) that there has been no restitution of
conjugal rights as between the parties to the
marriage for a period of one year or upwards after
the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal
rights in a proceeding to which they were parties."
(emphasis added)
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs.
D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 2 S.C.R. 126, has observed that-
"26. We are also satisfied that this marriage has
irretrievably broken down. Irretrievable
breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce
under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. But, where
marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness
created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of
both, the Courts have always taken irretrievable
Designation: Personal Assistant
breakdown of marriage as a very weighty
circumstance amongst others necessitating
severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead
for all purposes cannot be revived by the Court's
verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is
because marriage involves human sentiments and
emotions and if they are dried-up there is hardly
any chance of their springing back to life on
account of artificial reunion created by the Court's
decree.
6. Coming back to the case in hand, on being asked, Mr. Mohanty
submits that since the conjugal relationship between the parties has
been snapped since 2013 and the wife left the company of the
husband a decree for desolution of marriage on the ground of
desertion ought to have been granted. At this stage, we are conscious
of the fact that there are so many unprecedented things happened in
the life between the parties, the parties never resumed the Co-
habitation after December 2013 and during last 12 years no effort
has been made by either party for restitution of conjugal rights. So,
in the circumstances keeping in view the fact as noted above,
coupled with the allegations leveled against each other embedded
with hatredness we find to be a case of complete breakdown of
marriage for last one decade and as such we feel it appropriate to
grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage on the ground of
Designation: Personal Assistant
desertion U/s. 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly,
the marriage between the appellant and respondent, solemnized on
3rd March, 2013, is hereby a decree of divorce under Section
13(1)(i)(b) of the HM Act
7. On the question of permanent alimony, Mr Mishra, for the wife
Respondent wife submitted for grant of alimony to the tune of Rs.
30,00,000/- ( Thirty Lakhs) which was opposed by Mr. Mohanty, the
learned counsel for the Appellant/husband. Mr. Mishra though
submitted that the husband is having substantial income could not
account for a full proof account thereof. However, it is seen from the
evidence brought on record that the husband is a business man
staying at Dhenkanal town with substantial income. The wife is also
a resident of Dhenkanal town, who presently stays with her parents.
Considering on the aspect of standard of living, age of the parties
and place of their residence, we feel it appropriate to grant
permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.18 lakhs to be paid by the
husband to the Respondent wife. This amount will strike a balance
between proving the Respondent with financial security and
ensuring that the Respondent husband is not unduly burdened,
Designation: Personal Assistant
thereby upholding the principle of fairness and equity in matrimonial
disputes.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of granting decree of divorce
by dissolution of marriage between Appellant and Respondent with
further direction to pay permanent alimony of Rs.18,00,000/-
(eighteen lakhs) by the husband depositing the same before learned
Judge, Family Court within a period of two months from today,
failing which the wife is at liberty to proceed against him in
accordance with law.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
M..K. Panda, P.A.
